Hidden News

 For Reals. Google misses tons, is what I meant. (stop reading what I didn't write!)

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/president-biden-signs-executive-order-14111

The ISC and CISA, they're not even on TV shows.
And the sovereignty of Indian tribes in the US to be able to spend money the way they want, is the subject of another Executive order.

Why do I know any of this? It was a tease just before a commercial break, and I never endure commercials (weather, traffic and puppies) to hear whatever they teased.

loooong bloggy thing TBA, or nevermind.

https://hosted.ap.org/dailycourier/article/88003e085359a88cb1135a818c722c05/thousands-tons-dead-sardines-wash-ashore-northern-japan if this is there, I didn't see it yet. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-67663107

Welcome to 1984

Wiki explains it nicely (ble?)

I wonder what civics classes say, hmm.
Framers, interpreters of Frames, Supporters of frames (as opposed to "defenders")

Naw, teachers just make you read some damn book, Lawyers destroy the book in court, it's moot ("moot", now there's a word)

"Second Highest OFFICER" hmm

A guy so qualified he gets written up in papers and quoted by the less smart,

First said that Trump couldn't run, and Then he had an epiphany, a revelation, (or someone said something to his boss?)

The point is, he totally changed his mind, for whatever reason.

Unfortunately this is a paywalled article I can no longer go to.
But maybe you can.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/us/politics/trump-calabresi-14th-amendment.html

Can Felons run for office? I wonder.

----

A nice website

https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-oath-office

Not that anyone asked but the wordage is so exacting that when The person issuing the oath for Barack Obama made an error, 
They took the oath *again* the next day. It's all in the link.

Lame Duck or not, a president is still the President until late-January (the 20th?) or at least until the next guy takes the oath of office.

Someone oughta bring that up...
------

Shirley Maclaine made a movie about a bodyguard preserving, protecting and defending her ("Guarding Tess," I think (2-second google, what do I know)

But I doubt the bodyguard *supported* her, at least until the end of the movie (which I never saw.)

So I suppose their hair splitting is valid, a president going against the constitution while preserving protecting and defending it, would be possible, if you're of a mind to believing in that (which apparently we'll all have to, soon.)

In a related article (link) the supreme court relies more and more on opinionated briefs than in actually studying precedent-law. So (the article says) a well heeled few severely influences what the court concludes.