Barb Berggoetz, writing for the Indy Star, has a report on the Assembly formerly known as the “Mount Vernon Assembly”. Apparently people who are part of legislatures in various states are congregating for the purpose of setting up a framework to have a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments of some sort to amend the Constitution.
State legislators from 33 states began a two-day session Thursday to develop policies and rules for holding that convention in the future. They hope to amend the U.S. Constitution in a process that bypasses Congress.
See also this earlier report where
Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, a key leader in the movement, says the nation’s growing fiscal crisis is the reason he is pursuing this approach. He believes Washington politics are so broken that solutions won’t likely come from the federal government.
This seems like such a Rube Goldberg approach. Draft the substantive language you want in the Constitution. Ask federal legislators to pass it in the traditional manner via the Congress. If that doesn’t work, and you still think it’s a good idea, then try going the State route.
The way they’re doing it, it feels like they are trying to get some momentum going before offering something unpalatable.
Doug, admit it. The current system of government is a bad, broken, idea. The Supreme Court has allowed and zealously furthered government to stray far from its enumerated powers, and the court finds a way to justify any expansion of government, claiming it “constitutional.”
When a court of judicial review fails to hem in the government and allows everything to be “constitutional,” in absence of express contradictory language, don’t be surprised that people want to put that express language in the Constitution.
It’s a shame so much has to be done to restrain a court that won’t restrain itself and has maneuvered itself into being beyond the reach of check by the other two branches.
I think government is messy, not broken. I think people like to believe they live in exceptional times. I don’t think we do.
Amen. What this is is a battle between crackpots who cannot win elections. David Long, you want control “spending”? Perhaps, you should run for Congress and do it. This backdoor way, which is an attempt for the Levin contingent to re-enact the Articles of Confederation, is the last gasp of the desperate.
I agree. This desire to portray the “difficulties” we live in today as somehow unprecedented seems to betray a serious lack of historical knowledge. It’s not worse than the Great Depression or World War II which are nearly accessible with our oldest citizens. Nor does it approach the unrest of the 1960s, although it might well should with the income inequality and the burgeoning voting restrictions. And we overlook the massive problems in our nation during the sesquicentennial of the Civil War and it’s aftermath.
What does “exceptional times” have to do with this?
It’s not foreordained from God that the United States Constitution endure in perpetuity, exactly as written. That’s a bit solipsistic.
Your comment falls under a human mentality in which people think that their reality is exactly how things must be.
The Belgians don’t live under the United States Constitution, care to amend it or consider it an “exceptional time” if the Americans shuffle their constitution about. It’s a very American-centric viewpoint to think that American efforts to revise their laws creates an “exceptional time” on Earth.
If the Belgians reformed their constitution, it wouldn’t even be reported outside the Francophone world.
My thought is that the document has served us very well over the last 200+ years. We have shuffled it around a bit, going through the Congressional amendment process. If an amendment can’t get through Congress now and if we don’t live in exceptional times requiring that we use an amendment process that has not been used in the last two centuries, then likely the amendments — whatever they might be — simply aren’t great changes or additions to the Constitution.
“My thought is that the document has served us very well over the last 200+ years.”
You like the results. Others don’t.
That’s why there’s a political process to sort these things out. They’re using that political process provided right there in that document you say has “served us well.”
Is your argument essentially that since one avenue of revision hasn’t been used until now that it shouldn’t be used? There’s not much depth to that argument. It finds you supporting the Constitution but insisting that language within it is merely illusory and should be given no effect.
I suspect you greatly prefer the “constitutional system” to the actual Constitution.
Be honest. If you could win the result you desire, you’d ram it through Congress and override the veto. But you can’t because this system was designed to have checks and balances and require compromise. The rightward party has decided those are awful words and would rather stand on the sidelines holding their breath til they get their way and lobbing hand grenades when the left tries to move, even of their choices are middle of the road.
You bemoan the influence of the courts. Exactly how would you change this? Even those who propose this convention method are trying to backtrack and claim they only want limited changes . How disingenuous, when we know the exact constitutional system you decry was designed by men who were given the task to adjust not destroy the Articles of Confederation.
To be fair, every time there has been a national cry for a Article V convention, the national legislature (i.e. Congress) has proposed and adopted an amendment, thus making the call moot.
A way more detailed analysis and history of Article V convention stuff can be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42592.pdf
Doug, your last comment in the initial post is probably right on. When you hear about the process and why it is so wonderful, be careful. The content will be unpalatable. All the participants probably pass the right wing purity test. What could possibly go wrong?
This is a long way to go just to make sure gay people can’t get married.
“I love the Constitution! I worship it! I carry it with me everywhere! It’s perfect! Now let’s change it!”
Neither gay marriage nor abortion are in any way mentioned in the Constitution or allowed by it, yet the Supreme Court finds both acts are rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Courts ran amok with blabbering about “legislative intent,” so legislators had to start appending legislative intent declarations to statutes.
If the Constitution is a mere thing of clay, then it’s time to turn the Constitution into a codex and get some certainty to the laws.
Neither gay marriage nor abortion are in any way mentioned in the Constitution or prohibited by it, yet the Supreme Court finds both acts are rights forbidden by the Constitution?
I personally think the primary process and gerrymandering are harming / will harm America more than the Supreme Court. That, and the flow of money into politics. I’d pay more in taxes for government funding elections… than deal with the current system.
Odds of the current groups of individuals addressing those issues? Nada.
“I love this counrty! I worship it! I carry it with me everywhere! It’s perfect! Now let’s fundamentally transform it!” (I am paraphrasing Obama here).
Exactly how has he transformed it fundamentally? You mean to get government more involved in the health insurance business — Medicare? Medicaid? VA hospitals?
Stuart, google “Liberty Amendments” to see what these clowns are up to. Don’t get me wrong, Long’s insane balanced budget amendment is silly, but nothing like what these nullifiers want
Tim, how many millions would you happily kill to keep a totalitarian state in power?
You call Freedom advocates “clowns?” Have your say. Indeed, say more. Everyone knows that your side is after complete control of every citizen’s actions, a wholesale destruction of Liberty and periodic episodes of genocide to remind the people who is in charge, to realign the population distribution and to quell dissenters.
Here are the Liberty Amendments.
A Maoist such as yourself would of course find these reclamations of Freedom to be offensive.
Doug’s page wouldn’t let me link to RedSt@te.
Here’s the URL:
http://tinyurl.com/kulhcgu
A “Maoist” such as myself recognizes the problem with those suggestions, which is that the minority of white conservatives, who cannot win elections, is attempting an end run around the judicial and legislative process by setting up a bunch veto points where Mississippi and Alaska have as much power to control the workings of the State as California and Texas do.
It’s exactly the problem that sent delegates to Philadelphia to enact the current Constitution, flawed as it is.
Oh, the ad hominem is cute and all. And, I need a link to Red State as much as you do. I’m a regular listener to Levin’s radio program where he hawks his books mercilessly. It’s how I know what the a-hole wants to do to America
The only “problem” you have with the Liberty Amendments is that leftist genocidal tyrants hate every possible exercise of freedom and want to impose a communist totalitarian government. The Liberty Amendments and restoration movements impede the imposition of communism.
You and your fellow leftists are the a-holes, and Levin wants to destroy your America and restore the U.S. Government to its proper size. I’ll eagerly help.
For a supposedly smart man, you don’t understand history or political science, For a society to function, especially a democratic society which respects individual and minority rights, there have to be vetoes in the political; system (what simpletons refer to as “checks and balances”). Through history and law, we have tons of them.
As is obvious from the Republican-led obstructionism of the last 5 years, we have too many (i.e. a govt which cannot even staff itself sue to willful obstruction by a minority is not functional). the system has some correcting mechanisms, which is why Harry and the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Levin’s ideas cannot win an election. He is a reactionary tool and con man and he represents a fading, white -power elite. Much like the Southerners of the Antebellum period or Jim Crow period, Levin’s ideas and political allies — GENERALLY — cannot a) win a majority to elect a president, b) cannot win both houses of the legislature*, c) cannot win State houses on the Coast or where people actually live (except Texas).
Sooooo, Levin seeks to devolve power to the only he can win, the state houses of Indiana, Mississippi, and Wyoming. By claiming one state is the same as the opther, Levin and his allies make sure a majority does NOT rule. Thus, much like the Articles of Confederation (which contained requirements that States ratify Congressional legislation), Levin seeks to overturn the Constitution and increase the number of minority veto points, which will give as much power to the jackass in majority leader in Utah as the entirety of the California state legislature.
You can whine and harrumph, but at some point, in a Republic, the policy will of the majority wins. If you don’t like losing, the solution is not changing the rules so that Montana can veto infrastructure projects in New York, it’s to convince people you’re right and win elections.
More veto points = bad
“Levin’s ideas and political allies — GENERALLY — cannot a) win a majority to elect a president,”
Then perhaps we need smaller republics, countries in which Levin’s folks do hold the top rung, and countries in which folks who prefer Obama and Feinstein get their own executive.
So, because the American people think your ideas are stupid, you wish to secede? Which, of course, the American people also rejected.
Patriotic Treason, the last refuge of a scoundrel
You’ll find that in most places in this country, overwhelmingly most places, actually, you and all your idiotic ideas are utterly unwelcome. If there were a geographic map of places where you’re safe to spew your hate, it would have less blue than this:
http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-usa-election-map-by-county-nyt.png
Even among Democrats, you’re a radical who has very few ideas that anyone wants.
There is a small number of highly populated urban islands where you’re safe in spewing your radical gibberish, but those islands don’t grow their own corn, lettuce and cattle.
Excellent map, “Freedom”. You may notice that the big “voters” in those huge red areas are prairie dogs who may agree totally, so if they can figure out a way register to vote, you are in. Most of the blue areas are actually occupied by people, the majority of whom tend to agree with timb116.
Using the map – yeah, that’s a winning argument, only if you’re too stupid to know where people – commerce – media – VOTERS actually live.
You can’t see the forest for the trees. Let people have a say in their area, but there’s no reason why a densely populated gay section of San Francisco should have much of a say, if any, on what happens in Redding.
Incidentally, that great groundswell of right wingers constitutes between 20% to 25% of the population, just a little less than the percentage of people who thought Richard Nixon was a fine president at his resignation (28%). We are talking about folks whose wires aren’t fully connected.
Yeah, cuz there ain’t any gays or lesbians out in Redding… And the gay mafia just ruins SF, right?
As a local government official in Indiana I am upset that the Indiana Constitution does not allow me to convene a convention to battle the massive overreach by State government in to matters of local control.
The Indiana Constitution reads to me as if it were written on a table napkin in an 1851 tavern. If you want to see a masterpiece, go to the site for the Ohio Secretary of State and view the 140 page Ohio Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson believed that we should have a Constitutional Convention every 30 years. Following Jefferson’s lead, the Illinois and Ohio Constitutions require a referendum on a new state Constitution every 20 years.
First, I’m not sure you’re incorrect since they did spend an awful lot of time in 1851 in taverns in Indy. But I wouldn’t want fundamental systemic change every 30 years– but I WOULD like the ability for the citizens to nullify bad laws – like OH did with the rollback of bargaining rights. And a 140 page Constitution is insane.
The Constitution was written in malleable language that 18th century attorneys and sophisticated individuals would understand. It was also drafted in a contentious environment over a hot Philadelphia summer. Given the founders fear of the return of monarchy or an equally repressive government, they established a system that greatly diffused power and guaranteed an inefficient system of government. The document is virtually impossible to amend.
And to some extent, it is consistent with our common law/statutory law split scheme. It is not a complete consitutional code, but a framework for governance in changing environments.
Carlito, you were almost right. After the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation, the Founders gathered to draft a document that instituted a strong central government, not a weak one. They ALREADY had diffuse powers. The national government is SUPPOSED to trump the state governments
No, Timb116, the Constitution attempted to create a balance. And it has served us relatively well. But the neoconfederate anarchists that are beginning to fill the statehouses and the house are putting that delicate balance at risk. But like all idiotlogues (the root of idealogue being idiot, not idea), will always overplay there temporarily and transitory hand and the constitutional government that we have enjoyed for over 200 years will reassert itself. But it gets tiresome, with barking, illiterate and poorly educated dogs ascending to temporary power to slap them down. It often seems easier to retire to the farm and hand protection from anarchy to the next generation.
Cowards always see anarchy at the gate if even the most obscure ordinance governing lighting the gaslamps were repealed.
Barking again, are you dog?
In the past few days, your President just lost all moral authority, all respect, all legitimate right to govern, is looking at impeachment, and this is the best defense you can mount? By the hour, the scandal deepens, and this is all you can think to say? We are looking at the worst scandal ever perpetrated by an American President, and you can offer only vapid, irrelevant, hissing shrieks?
We are looking at a President who directly attacked the Constitution by using the power of his office to suppress, violate and attack the First Amendment, and all you have to say is a cowering hope I’ll let up on you?
You’re partially right when you note that the pitbulls are on the loose. This is going to be a dogpile.
You’re still ranting about this? I’d give you credit for persistence but I have to take away as much for not knowing when you’re beaten. As established before, produce the system log or you’re just speculating.
Quoting Darrell Issa of all people? I mean, I guess he does know a little something about destroying things but… he’s your IT expert? A guy who owned a car alarm company?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmDXRt7ZLYA
I’ll admit, I missed the latest rant on Fox – but what huge violation did OUR President just perpetrate – supposedly earning him impeachment? BTW, have you noticed that the ordinary (less looney) GOP leadership of the House have not drawn up charges of Impeachment? I wonder why? Maybe they know that could spell a shellacking in the midterms?
There’s a supremacy clause and a “necessary and proper” clause for a reason, as Madison explained in Federalist 45, i.e. a strong national government.
the rest of your comment is a delight to the senses!
The “necessary and proper” clause is only to carry out enumerated powers.
This is easy. Did you misread, or are you willingly misconstruing?
Reminds me of ALEC
“My thought is that the document has served us very well over the last 200+ years. ” And that document you tout has the very process in it that allows citizens of states to bypass Congress to get a constitutional amendment passed. If the Founders were so wise to give us such a document, I don’t assume they were unwise for including within that document the alternative for passing a constitutional amendment. I think you’re wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
They put the impeachment process in there too. Doesn’t mean it was wise for the House Republicans to use it on Bill Clinton in 1998. I imagine there is a lot of overlap between people who thought that was a good idea then who also think this current effort is a good idea.
But the main point is there might be a time and place for using various processes. I’ve seen no indication there is any need for using this unused process now. What, specifically, are they trying to amend the Constitution to say?
“But the main point is there might be a time and place for using various processes. I’ve seen no indication there is any need for using this unused process now.”
Again, as I said earlier:
“You like the results. Others don’t.
That’s why there’s a political process to sort these things out. They’re using that political process provided right there in that document you say has “served us well.” ”
Paul has also caught that you’re trying to straddle both sides of the fence.
“You have a right to a firearm. I don’t see why you want to use it to turn off the TV. We always used the remote in the past.” I don’t see how that’s “straddling.”
Maybe the unspoken problem is that the other guy in the room has the remote & wants to keep watching the TV and maybe the firearm could be used to turn off the TV *and* shut the other guy up about it.
Not really a well crafted analogy, Doug. if you’re trying to illustrate overkill, better would be: Is James Bond most comfortable arriving home after a day at the office by activating the ejector seat as he passes his flat at 100 mph, or by casually pulling into a parking space and leisurely leaving his car? Both methods get him to his door.
I only write the above as a literary exercise, as overkill is not the issue. Your problem is that your opponents are rightfully using the best and perhaps only legal remedy available to them. As their attorney, would you not advise them to use every available means, though squeaky and creaky some doors might be?
If you’re stuck on process, you’re not going to win the point. The articles of the Constitution don’t have an expiration date. Mount Vernon’s method is a valid means of constitutional revision, and their procedural approach is not repealed by a coating of dust. Indeed, as the machinery of their method is now being wound, all the dust has been cleared, and all the joints oiled. Serious contemplation of the practice has well freshened it and returned it to currency.
Hold off on the victory dance, bub.
http://blogs.wishtv.com/2014/06/13/constitutional-convention-still-a-long-way-off/
Further…
Given the mental firepower of the Indiana folks involved, I’m not too worried this will amount to anything.
After listening to Mark Levin trash Eric Cantor AND Kevin McCarthy yesterday, I hope the thing does happen. It will definitely fail and watching the Far right argue with wingnuts and the Extreme Right and the neo-confederate/libertarians will be absolutely hysterical. Powerless ideologues denouncing each other for minor differences might be the best comedy of all
I believe the desire of some people for a Constitutional Convention stems from their very real delusion that they, like the Founders, are living in perilous times, and they must prevail upon the citizenry with extraordinary measures. The fact that they could be the domestic enemies the Real Founders warned about never occurs to them.
That, plus ego. Ego ‘splains most of this.
By the way, anyone ever look into who’s picking up the tab for all these heroic lawmakers’ travels?
Impeaching Obama is now on the table, for very good cause.
Was it proper for the Republicans to impeach Clinton over Lewisnky? Arguable.
Obama has been using the IRS to target political opponents. That’s abuse of office, certainly impeachable, but not the clearest path to it. Now, however, Obama’s really compounded his problems by falsifying government records. Congress has requested all Lerner’s e-mails. Huge portions are missing. It’s impossible for an e-mail archival server to lose e-mails. All Lerner’s e-mails would pass through the U.S. Government server where they would be securely archived. If the e-mails are missing, it means someone deleted the e-mails from the U.S. Government e-mail archiving system. A deletion means someone ordered the deletion.
That deletion, ordered, directed or allowed by anyone in the Obama administration constitutes the crimes of Destruction of Government Records, Fraud, Perjury, Obstruction of Congress, Conspiracy, and any number of impeachable offenses.
This isn’t Benghazi. This is worse than Watergate.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/curl-irs-scandal-gets-nixonian-the-18-minute-or-26/#.U541HU9clUw.twitter
Congratulations, you won today’s prize for “comment that makes no sense in the context of the thread”.
Joe:
Since ‘yer Google might be broke, again, I’ll help you out with some keyboard commands. With this thread open in your browser, hit the “Ctrl” and “F” keys on your keyboard. Type the word “impeach” into the search box, and hit “Enter.” Find the first person who used that word in this thread.
As always, take all the time you need.
Sorry, Control-F doesn’t work on a Mac.
So yeah, my point stands.
I also like apple pie.
Let me guess – you’re a computer, and this is one of those Turing test deals. Doug said “impeach”, and you ran the “Impeach Obama” script.
If I pointed out that you’d have a completely different attitude towards this effort if the thrust of it was to “revise” the Second Amendment, I suspect you’d launch into some other screed.
But spare me the effort. The previous occupant of the Oval Office destroyed the Fourth Amendment. Pardon me when I fail to get worked up about whatever you’re saying.
@Freedom:
You write:
“… Huge portions are missing. It’s impossible for an e-mail archival server to lose e-mails. All Lerner’s e-mails would pass through the U.S. Government server where they would be securely archived. …”
As a computer geek I can tell you that it is all too easy to drop emails by the wayside. Most messages are transient and archiving the massive amount that goes through a company’s system is expensive. It appears that Ms. Lerner received about 67,000 emails while at the IRS. I’ve probably received the same number during my time at Purdue and I am 100% certain that Purdue could not recover them unless they looked at my personal PC. Which, according the Ms. Lerner, is not possible since her hard drive crashed. Now perhaps the IRS should have had an archival email server and perhaps they should have had automated PC backup especially for a high ranking person in their organization but I would not be surprised that only lately have they come to that conclusion.
This is not to deny that there could be a deliberate conspiracy of email deletion. Just that the flip comment of “it’s impossible” is not true.
“As a computer geek I can tell you that it is all too easy to drop emails by the wayside.”
As someone who does this for a living, I’ll tell you this is impossible. There are multiple overlapping archival compliance standards and protocols, and an e-mail address in a modern office is not created without archival occurring. In fact, you can send an e-mail to a nonexistent address at a company, and the archival service will still capture and retain it. Archival is triggered by the extension, not the recipient. The front end allows searches by username, but you can also search for orphaned messages.
“Most messages are transient and archiving the massive amount that goes through a company’s system is expensive.”
And that expense is paid. Welcome to today’s workplace. And you wonder why companies complain about the cost of regulation?
“I’ve probably received the same number during my time at Purdue and I am 100% certain that Purdue could not recover them”
Not really germane. If you were an employee in state government, they could produce all of your 67,000 e-mails in about 20 minutes. If the sender or recipient contains in.gov, it’s archived as is every e-mail sent to “obamasucks@whitehouse.gov.”
“Now perhaps the IRS should have had an archival email server”
They do. .gov, .mil, etc. e-mails are archived as a matter of course, law, standards, practice, FOIA compliance, and other overlapping requirements. If IRS.gov is not archived, someone needs to go down for dereliction of duty and conspiracy to destroy official records and conspiracy to evade record retention requirements. If the IRS was not archiving e-mails, the Inspector General also needs to go down for gross incompetence or conspiracy, as this fact should have been caught in an audit.
“Just that the flip comment of “it’s impossible” is not true.”
Barring intent to defraud, It’s absolutely true.
Let me guess, you use “unbreakable” encryption and everything you touch has 100% uptime too.
There are no absolutes in the world, and that includes IT. Rick was right. Virtually impossible yes, impossible no.
You’re telling me that among all the things government gets wrong, IT isn’t among them? C’mon. Besides, I’ve heard enough stories of government IT screwups (ex. Indiana BMV storing full credit card info in plaintext) to lose my faith in perfect government IT systems.
“Let me guess, you use “unbreakable” encryption”
It’s an encryption issue, is it? Are you telling us that the U.S. Government e-mail archive was hacked from the outside, and, among all government employees, only two years’ of Lerner’s e-mails were deleted by this outside hacker? And that this outside hacker managed to delete the offline physical last-state backups, as well?
Is that your story, an encryption vulnerability?
Story? I know absolutely no details of what you speak of. But I do know you’re full of hot air on this one, bub.
You said you do IT for a living and that’s “impossible” for e-mails to get lost, which is patently false. I don’t care how much redundancy you throw at it, nothing is 100% perfect.
Virtually impossible yes, impossible no.
Let me help you with your next post: “I was wrong.” Say it, you’ll feel better.
“You said you do IT for a living”
I did?
“As someone who does this for a living, I’ll tell you this is impossible.”
Maybe you don’t know what that word means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiw3vVy_eN8
So all of the above you wrote should be avoided because you don’t know anything about IT.
Rick is right.
Got it.
So you’re not qualified to have the debate. Got it. Rick was right. Got that too.
Next time you want to have a debate about system redundancy, please let me know. My IT degree and experience in the field might come in handy.
I’d advise stopping while you are behind. Because it’s kind of going like this for you right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6blEjab9wU
Joe, if you have an “IT degree,” and you don’t understand e-mail archive standards, I can’t imagine what use you are “in the field.” No critical industry will make you the local administrator of the Exchange server or the liaison for the external e-mail archive. Installing you would be negligent, as the company could not verify that its admin was aware of and competent in complying with governing regulations.
I can’t believe you haven’t tried to become current in these subjects to fill that gaping hole in your resume.
Being the advocate for IT incompetence and IT regulatory ignorance isn’t helping you take any heat off Obama and is only an argument for offshoring these functions.
You’re of no use to this discussion.
“Being the advocate for IT incompetence and IT regulatory ignorance isn’t helping you take any heat off Obama and is only an argument for offshoring these functions.”
I still don’t understand what Obama did other than what you posted here, but that hasn’t mattered for some time to this post.
Here’s what I’ve been discussing and you’ve been ducking for a few posts now, instead choosing to play the wordsmith game and foam at the mouth.
Said you: “It’s impossible for an e-mail archival server to lose e-mails.”
You are wrong as the day is long on this and I will not concede this point.
Yes, it’s possible. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. I don’t care if you’ve got redundant systems/processes, multiple on and off-site backups, cloud backups, etc. There always remains the chance, however small, that everything goes wrong and you find yourself up a creek with missing data or no data.
Let me quote myself again: “Virtually impossible yes, impossible no.”
Do I think that’s the case in whatever we’re talking about?
No, someone probably deleted the mails. Duh – We agree. Maybe you should have asked me earlier in the thread what I thought happened.
Can I say they were deleted maliciously with 100% certainty like you are? Based on what you’ve posted above, no. Neither can you without a system log of activity on that machine or archival e-mail system.
Find that smoking gun and it’s a different discussion. Till then, have a great day.
ps: Offshoring is the solution? Yes, throw more complexity and cultures that don’t value IP into the mix. That will be the answer.
“Yes, it’s possible. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. I don’t care if you’ve got redundant systems/processes, multiple on and off-site backups, cloud backups, etc. There always remains the chance, however small, that everything goes wrong and you find yourself up a creek with missing data or no data.”
Let it go.
This is wrong with one account, and it’s laughable with six.
How thin is that margin of error through which you’re now trying to squeeze six IRS accounts?
First I will say that since we are talking about the IRS which requires the rest of us to retain records for many years then I absolutely agree with your statements in the paragraph that contains “…If IRS.gov is not archived, someone needs to go down …” There is no excuse for the IRS IT system to be that screwed up — either in policy or in implementation.
I looked up Purdue’s email archival policy. 30 days for the actual email, 90 days for the metadata of who and subject. POP3 to my personal machine in order to get the email and, hey, one hard drive crash and 90 days later no-one will be able to figure out what I sent or received. But then I am not in the government nor regulated and especially I am not an IRS official.
I know that some companies have deliberately small enough mailboxes that, if subpoenaed, they will not have incriminating emails to hand over. I don’t know if the IRS’s unstated policy was similar or just plainly, as Joe puts it, screwed up. According to a Washington Post article I read:
“… Prior to the eruption of the IRS controversy last spring, the IRS had a policy of backing up the data on its email server (which runs Microsoft Outlook) every day. It kept a backup of the records for six months on digital tape … after six months, the IRS would reuse those tapes for newer backups. …The IRS also had two other policies that complicated things. The first was a limit on how big its employees’ email inboxes could be. At the IRS, employees could keep 500 megabytes of data on the email server. If the mailbox got too big, email would need to be deleted or moved to a local folder on the user’s computer. … Emails considered an “official record” of the IRS couldn’t be deleted and, in fact, needed to also have a hard copy filed. … The letter sent to the senators suggests that it was up to the user to determine what emails met those standards. It’s not clear if Lerner had any hard copies of important emails. …”
Heads do need to roll. If the missing email is not a deliberate cover-up then the IRS procedures — as outlined above — were poorly implemented especially for an agency that requires other people to keep records for many years.
Why are all Neo-Confederates and “libertarians” computer geeks or engineers?
Timb116, it seems to be connected with the fact that they tend to be rigid, authoritarian and very linear people who have trouble understanding that people and organizations are not linear, nor computer programs. They get bent out of shape when something that “should” be perfect is not. After all, life is just a bunch of rules to follow, right? Lots of fun to be with. The political group and the “linear” professions tend to go together. That is more a tendency than a rule, but the connection is clear.
Good points, Stuart and Timb116. I would add that these linear types usually lack the ability to process nuance and possess a very manichean world view. And likely they seek out jobs were a Boolean process can be followed.
You, all three, are painting with a pretty broad brush. At least you, and especially Stuart, should add, “But not all computer geeks and engineers are Neo-confederates and libertarians.” Otherwise you are slandering many members of my family and I will get all “bent out of shape” over that.
In the interest of domestic harmony, I think we should add that.
Thanks. I think that was the only quibble I have ever had with your commentary.
After seeing the equipment most govt emploees use, it occurs to me, mot of their email probably comes through a Commodore 64
More E-mail Lost.
“It’s not just Lois Lerner’s emails. The Internal Revenue Service says it can’t produce emails from six more employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups…”
IRS Has Lost More Emails…
If indeed the Washington Post article is correct — e.g., the IRS archived email for 6 months and then reused the archive tapes and that mailbox sizes are limited to 500 MB — it would not be surprising that emails can not be produced. Not just only for the IRS personnel involved in the targeting issue (or scandal, if you prefer that word) but for any IRS personnel.
Geez, what a screw-up. We should expect better from a financial agency.
It’s widely believed that part of the IRS “scandal” was an agency trying to make do with a lack of resources after years of budget cuts. So after the “scandal” came to light, of course, the IRS was punished with… more budget cuts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/01/14/irs-gets-hammered-in-the-2014-budget-agreement/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-sec-funding-house-gop-cuts-107940.html
The problem is growing.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/16/attkisson-on-missing-irs-documents-if-the-emails-really-are-lost-thats-quite-a-story-in-itself/
From the Comments section:
“[TruthamidstFolly]As an IT guy, with all the servers in the federal government and back up systems and off-site archive storage along with redundant disaster recovery systems…. the IRS is LYING !!!!! Either the entire system crashed (NOT) or there was a methodical deletion of all server email systems for a specific date range. Subpeona the Director of IT, all the managers of the email network, and the managers of the data storage (Database) systems and put them on the grilling post !!!! You find the truth…. or give me them for 1 day each and I figure it out”
I can’t say that I think much of the cited article. It repeats the idea that the email simply can’t go missing because, well, it can’t since obviously there would be all sorts of redundancies built-in. QED. IMHO the person in the comment section is missing the point by making it a two choice question. There is at least one other explanation which is what the Washington Post (and other sources) have mentioned — i.e., that the IRS only kept email archives for 6 months.
If we are now quoting people from comment sections in blogs then here is quote from a commentator in SlashDot:
— start quote —
Actually, anyone who has handled email admin for a big business knows they have email “retention polices” [d4discovery.com] where they explicitly delete all email older than X days (often just 90 days) except for what each user deliberately saves off. They do it to preemptively destroy evidence that might be used against them. But they never say that, they always have reasons that sound legitimate to the credulous, like lack of resources or being appropriate to the business culture, etc. They also routinely over-write or discard the backup-tapes as part of that retention policy because that would defeat the purpose if they didn’t.
I can totally believe that some chucklehead IT manager with experience in that sort of environment decided to implement the same polices for the IRS because it is an industry “best practice.”
— end quote —
Once there are no archives then it is entirely possible for emails to go missing — personal computer crashes, incompetence on the part of the person receiving the emails (I’ve lost parts of my email due to accidentally deleting a sub-folder and not realizing it for weeks … fortunately not overly critical stuff but it did contain some of my early emails so it was sad to see it go), and of course deliberate deletion on the part of the individual.
To throw in more quotes:
—–
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
—–
[And as per previous posts I believe that if such a 6-month policy, deliberate or not, was in place then someone(s) at the IRS should be, metaphorically, shot.]
“Let it go.”
You’re wrong and you can’t bear to admit it. I get it. I can see how this is embarrassing for you.
“How thin is that margin of error through which you’re now trying to squeeze six IRS accounts?”
From Rick below:
“If indeed the Washington Post article is correct — e.g., the IRS archived email for 6 months and then reused the archive tapes and that mailbox sizes are limited to 500 MB — it would not be surprising that emails can not be produced. Not just only for the IRS personnel involved in the targeting issue (or scandal, if you prefer that word) but for any IRS personnel.”
How thin is that margin? About as thin as Pat Bauer.
Again, I agree with you that people probably deleted the mails. Though Rick is introducing some doubt into that thought.
“As someone who does this for a living, I’ll tell you this is impossible.”
“It’s impossible for an e-mail archival server to lose e-mails.”
As shown above with the flaws in the IRS’ process, which sounds like ANYTHING but a finely designed and implemented IT system, it’s definitely a number above 0.00%, which is all I need to make my point.
But do let me know when you’ve got the system logs so we can discuss the malicious activity, though that isn’t even germane to my point.
Save it for the impeachment.
Do you spend your whole life in a Washington Times/Fox News bubble? Are you somehow unaware that the IRS IG stated in Congressional testimony in July of 2013 that ALL 501c4 groups were targeted, regardless of political affiliation*?
This news is lost to victims of the right wing news bubble I have found
Lerner is about as much as an evil-doer as you are, freedom.
*Which was right, since almost new 501c4 groups break the law by not devoting “at least 50% of their expenditures” to “social welfare” activities
cnn.com/2013/07/18/politics/irs-scandal/
salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
“The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren’t many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups” were examined”
washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456
You should like the last link, because — after presenting some facts — it devolves into sophistry
Why do you steadfastly refuse to read the news or admit the truth? Oh, you”re a leftist. Your “truth” is manufuctured and changeable.
“Official records, like the e-mails of a prominent official, don’t just disappear without a trace unless that was the intention.” Darrell Issa
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/06/18/Issa-Responds-to-Claim-Lois-Lerner-s-Emails-Are-Gone-for-Good
You have trouble following thoughts, don’t you?
My comment was about the emails. It was about the entire situation, which is crap
“My comment was NOT about the emails”
You have trouble with reason and logic and I have trouble typing. we should make a buddy comedy together
Save it for the impeachment. You wondered a bit ago why so many freedom advocates hail from technical disciplines. It’s due to a capacity for logical, linear thought, something you and the irrational Left find anathema.
Right, ’cause lawyers are not logical or analytical.
You know who else came from a “technical field”? Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta
You’ll find law deliberately eschews Logic and that every court decision contains several logical fallacies. The Law does everything it can to excuse itself from all boundaries and constraints. The Law prefers to have every means open to it to arrive at the desired result.
It’s good that you know the law so well….as practiced in a fairy world with pink polka dot skies. Is there any other area you know nothing about that you’d like to subject to reductio ad absurdums?
Tim, if you’ve been at all paying attention, you’d have seen the courts toss out actual laws, whenever then can, to be replaced with judge-made “reasonableness” standards, which is merely the court operating as an ad hoc dictatorship.
Another tactic courts use to repeal laws or to create laws where none exist is to fabricate from the bench various “tests” or “levels of scrutiny.” These are hogwash, shallow, illogical judge-made legislation, but since no branch is capable of checking the judiciary, judge-made legislation stands, governs and is enforced by the courts, themselves.
The Liberty Amendments will put a stop to this usurpation.
Here’s a recent on for you, Tim. Conyers didn’t have the signatures to get on the primary ballot. The judge said heck with it, “it” being Michigan election law, and ordered Conyers on the ballot, replacing the law with a “good faith” standard.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378721/judge-rules-conyers-can-be-primary-ballot-despite-not-meeting-signature-requirements
right wing bs, although it’s nice of the NRO to care so much about electoral integrity, except when it comes to voters and elections. These are people who support voter ID (a poll tax), restricting voting hours, eliminating early voting, purging the rolls of eligible voters, etc…
but, HERE, they care so much for technical rules. The truth is Conyers had plenty of signatures and that the the people of his district, who elect him every two years whether he deserves it or not, singed petitions placing him on the ballot. BUT, because Michigan law requires the people taking the petitions to be registered Michigan voters (a way to keep all those national folks out?) and one or more of Conyers’s petition takers was/were not, you think the law says to screw the will of the voters.
Look, oh silly one, our government is about the intent of voting public, not some mindless dedication to technicalities. That why smart judges make reasonable decisions, because people like you want to use to law for undemocratic means.
Doug, you’re just trolling the Neo-Confederate with this post, right?
Bring me the popcorn as I watch these wingnuts denounce each other in vitriol and frothing madness. this is gonna be great.