James Anthony
@jamesanthony_us
Followers
837
Following
73K
Statuses
7K
I'm an experienced chemical engineer who applies process design, dynamics, and control to government processes, politics, and economics.
St. Peters, MO
Joined October 2012
@ProfMJCleveland Grilling can be easy and fast. Grilled salmon, chicken breasts, pork chops, pork tenderloin, hamburgers, filets, and brats. Just olive oil and plenty of salt and pepper. For sides, usually salads, occasional soups. Also, omelets and Canadian bacon, with berries or oranges.
0
0
1
@BrentAWilliams2 The diet advice has been wrong, and the exercise advice has been wrong. Many people are self-learning the value of low carbs / high animal protein, time-restricted eating, and resistance-band strength training. Teach what works, and many more people will learn and benefit.
0
0
0
@BrentAWilliams2 The diet advice has been wrong, and the exercise advice has been wrong. Many people are self-learning the value of low carbs / high animal protein, time-restricted eating, and resistance-band strength training. Teach what works, and many more people will learn and benefit.
0
0
0
@realJennaEllis Clearly too, the executive power is not vested in judges. Trump’s actions are constitutional. But if he then stops and instead follows judges, then he’s unconstitutionally failing to use our power that we’ve delegated to him to protect our rights.
0
0
1
@Eric_Schmitt Would you sponsor a single overall-total budget appropriation that’s significantly lower, and leave it to the executive to allocate budgets and manage the enforcement of constitutional rules and sanctions? The Duty to Limit the Take:
0
0
1
A Fed audit wouldn’t change a thing. Meanwhile, a smarter control approach would do the best possible, and the president is vested with the executive power. Let’s go straight there, for starters. The Fed Needs a Single Mandate: Make the Money Quantity Constant:
0
0
0
@seanmdav Superior judges use inferior judges to do their dirty work, like congressmen use bureaucrats. Legislators don't do broken-windows policing, legislators shield their colleagues. But good legislators can improve judicial processes, and they should.
POLITICIANS JUST GAME THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. WE NEED THEM TO IMPROVE ITS PROCESSES. To maximize justice, treat cases as projects and optimize their time, cost, and quality. Progressive senators Pete Welch and Joe Manchin want to make justices more Progressive by amending the Constitution: • Freeze the number of supreme court justices at nine. • Limit terms to 18 years. • Override appointment of chief justices by promoting the most-senior justice. Conservative politicians want to make opinions more conservative by eliminating checks on immigration and marriage. So, both sides’ politicians seek pet policy outcomes from courts. Meanwhile, the politicians’ current regulations let judicial processes strip litigants of property and cost them years. Many potential litigants can’t even get heard at all. Justice would be produced better by following through like the Constitution does. The Constitution isn’t focused on policies, the Constitution is focused on getting the processes right. On judicial processes, start where the Constitution left things, and get the next level of process details right: • Make informed appointments. | Ask upfront questions, require forthright answers. • Use a single three-judge panel in each court. | Expose Progressive judges. Correct errors in real time. • Draft quickly and revise quickly. | Original work. Individual opinions. Give bases. Quick outside reviews. Publish. • Experiment locally with remedies, while localizing errors. | Limit injunctions to only within home jurisdictions. • Remove Progressive judges quickly. | When one opinion doesn’t support the Constitution, summarily impeach.
0
0
1
@LHSummers @nytopinion In our republic (not democracy), we vest the executive power and accountability in executives. Now we're getting to see that none of you have been faithful fiduciaries.
0
0
1
@chiproytx Pass a single overall-total appropriation that's lower. Stop trying to grab the executive power to allocate line-item budgets, and logrolling. Start making executives make choices on enforcement and be accountable for results. The Duty to Limit the Take:
0
0
0
@PhilWMagness The Constitution makes it illegal to not execute a court order that is constitutional. The Constitution makes it violate your oath for you to execute a court order that is unconstitutional.
0
0
0
@realJennaEllis One strike is enough. We the people need our rights protected from every judge who ever defies the Constitution. Constitutional Impeachment Is Loss Prevention: Optimize Quality:
0
0
0
For the foreseeable future, we will always have more than 1% of judges who defy the Constitution. Elon Musk is being far too generous. Summary impeachments are in order. What’s stopping us from broken-windows policing is our Progressive modern senates. Constitutional Impeachment Is Loss Prevention:
0
0
0
@steve_vladeck Judges don’t get to grab executive power. If an executive would respect an unconstitutional opinion, even during appeals, he would be failing to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution. The executive would not be respecting the rule of law.
0
0
2
@DoryBeutel @steve_vladeck Also, if any appeal judge’s opinion would attempt to judicially grab executive power by asking for any limit on this constitutional exercise of executive power, that opinion should also be not followed.
0
0
0
@BillAckman NGOs are another Progressive organization type that exists to circumvent the Constitution. Don’t study them, just stop sending money and appropriating money. The Deep State Consists of Every Progressive: Action Item 8 of 39:
0
1
3
@ScottWRasmussen Disuse of constitutional powers deprives us of our rights. Turley is defending gutting the Constitution of one of these essential powers.
Impeachment exists to protect us. We are at risk from any officer who doesn’t support the Constitution. Paul Engelmeyer is a judge who is attempting to exercise executive power. Enough already! Broken-windows policing only protects us if it’s actual policing. Constitutional Impeachment Is Loss Prevention:
0
0
0
@repdarrellissa Also comprehensively improve judicial processes, and you’ll limit the impact of judges’ unconstitutional actions and start weeding out all judges who take actions that are at all unconstitutional.
0
0
0
"Nothing in Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury makes such a claim of judicial supremacy either. The standard civics-book (and law school casebook) myth misrepresents and distorts what John Marshall and the Framers understood to be the power of judicial review: a coordinate, coequal power of courts to judge for themselves the conformity of acts of the other two branches with the fundamental law of the Constitution, and to refuse to give acts contradicting the Constitution any force or effect insofar as application of the judicial power is concerned." The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury:
0
0
0
Madison was marketing the Judiciary Act and the Constitution. His description is a reasonable description of how things can work in practice, when you consider how people act politically. If a judge's opinion is persuasive, it can persuade voters to not support an executive's actions, and this can lead an executive to reconsider and use his powers differently. Executives aren't perfect. Nobody's perfect. Judges in England had used the power of persuasion remarkably well, politically. Judges in the USA were vested with similar power by representatives who knew that recent history well. Unfortunately, judges in the USA have a sorry history on major questions. They have been many decades late at getting things right, and they have been quick to get things wrong and keep them there. Anyway, judges' powers are only powers of persuasion. They are not self-executing, and they are not powers of lawmaking or law enforcement. Judges are in the weakest branch.
0
0
0