Home / foxnews
Showing posts with label foxnews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foxnews. Show all posts

New piece at Fox News: What Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn't

UPDATE: Photos from George Zimmerman investigation


My new Fox News piece starts this way:
The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find.
First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.
Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.
It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. . . . .

The South Florida Criminal Lawyers' Blog has this very useful discussion (the whole post is definitely worth reading).  Note also that this post is from April 13, 2012 and my guess that the new evidence would 

. . . the "provocation" theory is shaky, at best. F.S. 776.041 provides that the "Stand Your Ground" law is not available to a person who: "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." . . .. . . First, even if Zimmerman "provoked" the incident, he may still justifiably use deadly force, if: "Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant." According to Zimmerman and at least one witness, Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman. What is more, Zimmerman claims that Martin bashed his head on the concrete, which caused Zimmerman to fear death or great bodily harm. If the State cannot contradict this version of events, Zimmerman likely can establish that he "exhausted every reasonable means to escape," (he claims he was pinned to the ground), and he reasonably feared Martin's use of force would "likely cause death or great bodily harm."
Second, it is far from clear that following Trayvon Martin while speaking with the police constitutes "provocation." The second exception to "provocation" states that if the provocateur "In good faith...withdraws from physical contact" and communicates his desire to "withdraw from physical contact," but the other party "continues or resumes the use of force," then the provocateur may rely on the "Stand Your Ground" law. What is important to note, is that F.S. 776.041(2)(b) presumes that the "provocation" includes "physical contact." However, based on the evidence that is public thus far, there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated "physical contact." What is more, there is no precedent in Florida law indicating that conduct short of "physical contact" provides justification for the use of force, or amounts to "provocation."
Make no mistake: George Zimmerman has a real chance of avoiding a jury. All he has to do is convince a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he acted in justifiable self-defense.

The medical reports strengthen the argument that Zimmerman did not initiate physical contact and Zimmerman's yelling for help surely falls under the heading that he "communicates his desire to 'withdraw from physical contact.'" See also this post entitled "Probable Cause Affidavit in George Zimmerman Case Woefully Inadequate" on the same blog.
New Fox News piece: What's the truth about the unemployment numbers?

New Fox News piece: What's the truth about the unemployment numbers?

My new piece starts this way:

The recent sudden drops in both initial unemployment insurance claims and unemployment rates have generated a slew of positive news stories and lifted White House spirits. Fox News contributor and former Clinton pollster Doug Schoen even writes about the “high-fiving in the White House.”

But other numbers show a much weaker job market and economy; the average unemployment duration remains near its all-time high, hiring is stuck near record lows, and there are almost 3 million workers in part-time rather than full-time jobs. Further, GDP grew just 1.7% last year and few new companies are being started.

So which scenario is right?

First, let us set one thing straight. The apparent contradiction between a falling unemployment rate and other indicators isn’t because the Obama administration “manipulates numbers to get [the] unemployment headline under 9%” as Rush Limbaugh claims. The current "recovery" is so unusual that the normal rules for relating the unemployment rate to other labor market indicators don’t hold; indeed those rules can be quite misleading.

Take initial unemployment insurance claims. As the Wall Street Journal reported the end of last month: “Analysts generally believe the economy is adding jobs when jobless claims are consistently below 400,000.” Seasonally adjusted initial unemployment insurance claims held at around 353,797 on Thursday, and they have been consistently below 400,000 since the beginning of December.

But the “below 400,000” rule only makes sense if new hiring parallels growth during past recoveries.

Forecasting the number of people employed by focusing on workers filing for unemployment insurance is like guessing a pool’s water level by measuring how much flows out but ignoring the rate at which water is being added. . . .

My newest Fox News Piece: "Obama's contraception deception"

My new piece starts this way:

Thursday Senate Democrats narrowly voted down an attempt to end President Obama's mandate that Catholic organizations provide their employees with abortions and contraception for no co-pay or deductible.
Democrats pulled out the heavy artillery, sending out an e-mail last night charging that Republicans want to “tear down access to better care.” The campaign linked this vote to the specter of Republicans “bann[ing] many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization.”
Obama’s so-called reversal a couple of weeks ago that switched mandates from religious organizations to insurance companies that they buy policies from changed nothing. This cynical ploy can only work if women and the Catholic Bishops don't understand really basic economics.
Catholic organizations are upset that they might be forced to pay for abortions and contraception. Obama's solution?
The president originally wanted to mandate that Catholic organizations buy insurance policies with those services offered.
Now he instead proposes that health insurance plans must always cover abortions and contraception, and that these services must be provided for free.
By Obama's reasoning, if insurance companies are banned from charging for abortions and contraception, Catholic organizations aren't really going to be forced to pay for their costs. . . .






These comments by Rush Limbaugh is of some interest.

New Fox News piece: David Brock, Media Matters and gun control hypocrisy

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

David, say it isn't so!
The news from the Daily Caller website is surprising: David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, had a personal assistant illegally publicly carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia in order "to protect Brock from threats.” Few organizations have declared their opposition to gun ownership or concealed carry laws as strongly as Media Matters.
The group's opposition to guns has largely been a “scorched earth” approach, demonizing supporters of gun ownership and concealed handgun laws.
According to Media Matters, laws letting law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns for protection are "dangerous." They assert these citizens "endanger" police officers and "compromise public safety." And derisively refer to the “cult of victimhood,” where crime victims and defensive gun uses are pointed at to justify gun ownership. They claim that it is a “myth” that concealed handguns reduce crime and label those who disagree “extremist”. . . .




Newest Fox News piece: The bad news behind the January jobs report

My newest pieces starts this way:

In January 2009, 11.6 million Americans were out of work and 23 percent of them had been unemployed for more than six months.

Today there are 12.8 million unemployed and 43 percent have been out of a job for more than six months. The average length of unemployment has increased dramatically since even the recovery started. Back in June 2009, “only” 29 percent of the unemployed had been unemployed longer than six months.

The number of unemployed Americans last month fell by 339,000, the fifth largest drop since January 2009. But there was an even much more shockingly large number -- almost 1.2 million additional Americans were classified in January as not being in the labor force (see figure here). Unfortunately, that has been the consistent story that has made this “recovery” unique as more and more Americans have just given up looking for work. . . .


Interview with Mark Levin








UPDATE: Romney's take is available here:

Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve credit for improvement in the economy, saying the man he’s seeking to replace in November has stymied U.S. growth.
“This president has not helped the process; he’s hurt it,” the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination told 14 local businessmen he met today with in Sparks, Nevada. “If I’m the president, I will see what you do as being a very good thing, a patriotic and good thing.” . . .

New Fox News piece: President Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda Shows No Sign of Stopping

My newest piece starts this way:

President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying? . . . .



Four days later it is still the most read piece.
Newest Fox News piece: Fast and Furious Scandal Cries Out for Answers

Newest Fox News piece: Fast and Furious Scandal Cries Out for Answers

The way my newest Fox News piece starts:

The "Fast & Furious" scandal is getting messier and messier. New e-mails finally released late this past Friday reveal that the Department of Justice personal viewed the then-secret operation as a way to push for more gun control laws. Despite administration promises to the contrary, whistleblowers have endured "isolation, retaliation and transfer."
Meanwhile the operation's managers have done pretty well, some have even received promotions.
Thursday Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the operation was "wholly unacceptable," but he still offers absolutely no explanation to explain why the program was instituted.
What's going on here? Let's see...
- You have a government agency ordering gun dealers to make sales to suspected criminals that the dealers didn't want to sell to. - You have government agents testifying that the guns being purchased were not being traced. No attempt was made to even alert the Mexican government that the United States of America was given guns to drug gangs in their country. . . .

Newest Fox News piece: What the New Unemployment Numbers Are Telling Us

My newest piece starts this way:

The new unemployment numbers are a lot worse than the headlines indicate. The news media breathlessly reports that 120,000 jobs were created in November, but the working age population increased by about 160,000 people. But with job creation not even keeping up with the number of people entering the work force, how is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall from 9.0 to 8.6 percent?

The explanation is actually pretty simple. People are only counted as unemployed as long as they are actively looking for work. The obviously good for it to fall is from people getting a job. It is bad reason is if people simply give up looking for work.

In November, the numbers could hardly have been worse -- 487,000 people simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. It is the 6th worst report since the recession started 48 months ago. Even more startling, 5 of those 6 worst reports have occurred since the “recovery” supposedly started in June 2009 (See this link here). . . .




My Newest Fox News Piece: Yes, the Economy Is Growing But Obama's Policies Are Not Helping

My Newest Fox News Piece: Yes, the Economy Is Growing But Obama's Policies Are Not Helping

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

The economy grew slightly faster during the third quarter. But the newly released numbers mean that for the year GDP has only grown at an incredibly slow 1.4 percent, barely keeping pace with population growth.  The change in per capita GDP so far this year is essentially zero.

Normally the more severe the recession, the faster is the recovery.  During the Reagan administration, for same three quarters, GDP grew at 4.8 percent.  Since the Obama recovery started in June 2009, GDP growth has averaged 2.5 percent, compared to 6 percent over the same time period under Reagan.  The quarterly growth rates for the two recoveries are available here. 

Obviously, more people working would result in more income.  The slow GDP growth is tied to the continued record high unemployment. Unemployment has remained at least at 9 percent for 27 months and counting, a post World War II record.  While the unemployment rate during the recession in the early 1980s went higher, reaching 10.8 percent, the high rates did not last as long, staying above 9 percent for a relatively short 19 months. . . . 
Newest Fox News Piece: The China Currency Bill Will Make Americans Poorer, Not Richer

Newest Fox News Piece: The China Currency Bill Will Make Americans Poorer, Not Richer

My newest piece starts this way:

We seem determined to repeat the policy mistakes that made the 1930s Great Depression so deep. Already we have seen the massive increases in government spending and regulation. Today's vote on the China currency bill by the Senate adds another mistake. It resembles the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff law.

True, China is manipulating its currency to lower the value of the Yuan relative to the US dollar. This manipulation makes it cheaper for Americans to buy their exports, be it toys, furniture, or manufactured goods. It also makes it cheaper for us to purchase whole companies or shares in Chinese companies. It also means that the Chinese have to pay “too” much for American bonds and American products.

If passed, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 would force China to raise the value of the Yuan. And if they refuse to comply, we will increase the tariffs on what we buy from them, equivalent to putting a special tax on the goods we buy.

China’s currency manipulation is a mistake. Yet, their mistake doesn’t mean we should make one also. If Chinese leaders are stupid enough to subsidize Americans by selling their goods and assets too cheaply, why should we stop them? . . .

Newest Fox News piece: Has your job been saved?

My newest piece starts this way:

During Obama's first two years in office, he passed five stimulus/jobs bills. If you add up the promises, he boldly promised something well over 5.5 million jobs "created or saved." But reality turned out very differently: there are now 2 million fewer people working than when the first Stimulus passed. On top of that, the number of jobs should have increased as the country’s population has grown by almost 5 million. Population growth by itself should have generated more than 3 million new jobs. 

President Obama claims that instead of our economy being short of over 5 million jobs, things would have been even worse without his policies. We would have lost 10.5 million jobs without all his spending. No matter how bad the job numbers get, Obama points to some hypothetical economic meltdown that was avoided by his policies. Thus, no evidence whatsoever, no matter how bad, can be used against him. 

With all the different “Stimulus” and “jobs” programs, it is hard to remember all the promises and to keep track of where all the money has gone. . . .



Newest Fox News piece: Liberals and the Texas Unemployment Miracle

If this is the best that the Democrats can do to attack Rick Perry's Texas, the election might already be over. Democrats feel that they have to attack Texas because they don't have any way to defend Obama's policies. This is how my newest Fox News piece starts:



With Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry officially entering the presidential race last week, liberals have started attacking Texas' economic record.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times went first last Sunday. "So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment," Krugman claimed.

With the latest Gallup poll showing that just 26 percent of Americans approve of President Obama's performance on the economy, liberals have little choice but to try to distort what is happening in Texas.

"In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. . . ."


The Texas unemployment rate is about one percentage point lower than the national average, and it is true that other states such as New York and Massachusetts also have very similar rates (see the diagram here). . . . .




Please leave comments and link to this piece. Thank you.



A closely related piece at National Review Online has gotten a lot of attention.





See also this discussion here at the Political Math Blog.

Newest Fox News piece: The S&P Downgrade Is a Wake Call for All Americans

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:



When Standard & Poors downgraded Spain's bonds from AAA to AA+ in January 2009, its interest rates increased from 4.1 to 4.3 percent.

When the same ratings agency downgraded Ireland's from AAA to AA+ in March 2009, their interest rate rose by about 0.4 percentage points.

So what does that mean for Standard & Poors in terms of downgrading the U.S. bond rating?

With our $14.6 trillion in national debt, raising the U.S. government interest rates by the same amounts would eventually add about $29 to $58 billion a year in increased interest costs -- small change when we are already facing a $1.63 trillion deficit this year. And not all of that increase would be immediately felt since we only face the higher interest rate on newly issued bonds.

The problem with these downgrades is that they have a tendency to quickly spiral out of control. . . .












UPDATE: From The Hill newspaper:



Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Tuesday there is "no risk" the U.S. will lose its top credit rating amid a new analysis that revised its outlook on American debt to "negative."



Geithner took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report Monday by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will reach an agreement to address long-term debt.





There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating, Geithner said, forcefully disputing the notion that S&P or other ratings services might downgrade U.S. bonds from their current AAA rating.



"No risk of that, no risk," Geithner said on the Fox Business Network. . . .




Obama got what he wanted on the length of the deal to raise the debt ceiling, but we still got the downgrade of the credit rating.







Transcript from Obama's July 25, 2011 address to nation:

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. . . .

New Fox News piece: Looks Like We're In a Recession, Not a 'Recovery'

My new piece starts this way:

There seems no place to hide. Americans have seen the value of their stock portfolios crash this week. The S&P 500 and NASDAQ have both lost about 8 percent of their values, and they are headed down again today.
This week the Japanese NIKKEI stock market also lost over 9 percent of its value. And the UK's FTSE has lost over 11 percent. The German DAX about 13 percent.
So much for promises that if we only passed the debt ceiling increase the stock markets would be calmed.
Everyone was waiting for today's unemployment numbers to be released. The 117,000 new jobs temporarily lifted spirits because the number was better than what many had expected, but it was still not enough new jobs to even absorb more than three-quarters of the growing working-age population. Unemployment fell because 193,000 more people simply gave up looking for work.
Indeed, people giving up looking for work has been the hallmark of the Obama administration. . . .


Fox News also has this useful news story: "When Good News is Bad: Unemployment Rate Drops as Workers Bolt Labor Force"



Newest Fox News piece: The Debt Deal's Three Biggest Winners and Losers

My newest piece starts this way:

With a debt ceiling agreement finally in place and the Senate on track to approve it today congratulations are being handed out all around. 
Armageddon and catastrophe has supposedly been averted. And politicians are rushing to put the best face on the deal. 

Unfortunately, the new agreement does not accomplish as much as many had hoped, or as much as it should have, in terms of curbing spending and continued deficits. This explains why stock markets continued to fall despite the supposedly "good" news. The reason is because, once again, politicians are continuing to push the problem to the future. 

Here's a look at the winners and losers in the aftermath of the "catastrophe" that's just been averted: 

The Winners:

1. Stimulus Recipients and Big Government: President Obama’s “Stimulus” was supposed to just be temporary. Alas, the debt agreement locks in big government and the extra spending President Obama initiated will continue. 

After government spending soared by 28 percent from 2008 to 2011, the debt deal only starts cutting a meager $22 billion next year. That is an incredibly trivial cut -- just 0.6% of expenditures planned for next year. The cuts agreed on are heavily back-loaded towards the end of the 10 year budgeting cycle, when President Obama and many members of Congress will be out of office. 

Short of a constitutional amendment mandating balanced budgets, . . .


UPDATE: So what happened to the market today? They fell in Asia, Europe, and the US:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 265.87 points, or 2.19 percent, to end below the psychologically-important 12,000 mark at 11,866.62. The last time the blue-chip index declined for eight-consecutive days was in October 2008.

The S&P 500 plummeted 32.89 points, or 2.56 percent, to close at 1,254.05, slipping into negative territory for the year.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq tumbled 75.37 points, or 2.75 percent, to finish at 2,669.24. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq are both below their 200-day moving averages. . . .



Two recent Fox News pieces

Two recent Fox News pieces

"Pelosi Is Right -- The Gang of Six Plan Is Not Ready for Prime Time"

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has it right. The so-called "Gang of Six" proposal to increase the debt ceiling is "not ready for prime time."
The extremely short document is vague, and if six Senators can't agree on what the individual income and corporate tax rates are going to be or how much some of the cuts will be or where they will really be made, how does anyone expect the Democrat Senate, the Republican House, and President Obama to agree on anything.
For a proposal whose text is just over two pages long, one wonders why they need to have a slightly longer than one page executive summary. Take some of the central proposals:
-- Reform of individual income tax must generate $1 trillion in additional revenue through the elimination of tax deductions. The elimination of deductions is to be partially offset by "establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8 [to] 12 percent, 14 [to] 22 percent, and 23 [to] 29 percent."
-- There is a similar reform of corporate income taxes with the new rates to be "between 23 percent and 29 percent, rais[ing] as much revenue as the current corporate tax system." . . . .


Congress Can Learn From 1995-96 Debt-Ceiling Debate

Failure to raise the Federal debt ceiling limit could "roil the financial markets and cause severe economic problems," "cause profound damage to our country," and have “dire consequences.” So wrote the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and New York Times. But the year was 1995, not 2011.
Other ills predicted during that contentious debate were rising unemployment, reduced GDP growth, and soaring interest rates. That was at a time when President Clinton and Democrats were fighting off attempts by Republicans to link cutting the deficit to the increase in the debt ceiling and a continuing resolution on spending.
Then as now, there was a widespread misperception that failure to increase the debt ceiling would produce a default: "congressional Republicans are threatening to provoke the nation's first-ever default" (Washington Times). The Los Angeles Times reported: "the first real risk of a government default could occur November 15 [1995]." Even the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, warned that congressional Republicans should drop their efforts, declaring: "To default for the first time in the history of this nation is not something anyone should take in any tranquil manner." . . .

Fox News website is the top news website


For a more detailed discussion and the sources for these numbers see here.

Newest Fox News piece: Seven Myths About the Looming Debt-Ceiling 'Disaster'

My newest piece starts this way:

If Congress and the president don't raise the debt ceiling, the consequences will be disastrous, politicians and pundits tell us, -- the equivalent of an economic Armageddon. And President Obama warns that the consequences are so dire that he cannot possibly tolerate any delay in making an agreement. He announced yesterday that any debt deal must be completed by today, July 15th.

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, failure to raise the debt ceiling limit will cause the United States to default and "cause a financial crisis potentially more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.”
On Thursday, he renewed these warnings. And President Obama alarmed retired Americans this week: "I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

But the list of terrible things to come, if the government is stopped from continued deficit spending, goes on. Failure to raise the ceiling, it is warned, will dramatically raise mortgage interest rates, cause housing sales to plunge, create panic on world financial markets, and destroy the value of the dollar.

Austan Goolsbee, Obama's head of his Counsel of Economic Advisers, went so far this week as to blame the continued slow economic recovery on those few politicians who are against raising the debt ceiling. "[I]t's important we remove this wet blanket of uncertainty that is permeating the private sector where they don't know that the government -- there are people actively advocating that the government declare it's not going to pay its bills," he told MSNBC. Yet, the slow recovery has been going on for over two years, well before Republicans obtained control of the House of Representatives.

A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that Americans oppose increasing the debt ceiling, by a 69 to 24 percent margin.
Mr. Obama dismissed this finding recently and, as usual, he believes he knows better. According to him, Americans just don't understand the complexities of the arguments: "Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury (bond) auction goes. They shouldn't. . . . They've got a lot of other things on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. . . . Now, I will say that some of the professional politicians know better. And for them to say that we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. They know better."

But the general public is right. There is an overload from all the doomsday predictions. Earlier this year, before the debt limit was hit on May 21, the Obama administration already used the same scare tactics.

Here's a look at seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing on the American people: . . .









Obama at his press conference today was asked what he was willing to cut in spending (at 11:27 into the video): "You know, I am not going to get into specifics." At 13:20, "But if you are trying to get to 2.4 trillion without any revenue then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of discretion domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome, that is not something that I am going to support." Note that this is $2.4 trillion out of $46 trillion.

Fox News has an online poll asking people whether the threat of default is a "Scare Tactic." The poll is available here. This discussion by Rove is interesting:



Note: I have been asked about the 14th Amendment claim. For those who need more than the link in the piece, the Supreme Court decision in Perry v. United States (1935) ruled that any legally incurred debt must be paid.

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)