News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, March 14, 2016

Trump in Youngstown, Ohio on election eve, March 14, 2016

Trump, 3/14/16, Youngstown, Ohio
























Trump recited words of Al Wilson's 1960’s song The Snake,” about a tender hearted woman who saved the life of a poisonous snake which rewarded her with a deadly bite: ""I saved you," cried the woman. "And you've bitten me, but why?"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin. "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.""...

3/15/16, "Trump and ‘The Snake’," Reuters, Cassandra Garrison

"It’s safe to say that most Americans know by now that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump isn’t one to mince words. But many might have missed his penchant for reciting the lyrics of iconic soul songs at political events.

At a campaign rally in Youngstown, Ohio, before the state’s primary on Tuesday, Trump pulled one of his rarer speech tactics back out for the crowd – a recitation of Al Wilson’s 1960’s song “The Snake,” the tale of a woman’s good intentions backfiring when she tries to nurse a snake back to health.

Trump rolled up in his private jet to a hangar full of eager supporters and he came down hard on opponent John Kasich, Ohio’s governor, calling him “overrated” and an “absentee” leader who “can’t make America great again.” However, Trump’s tone suddenly turned musical as he shifted the focus to immigration.


“That was wonderful. How powerful was that?” said supporter Susan Sescourka of Courtland, Ohio.

“I thought it was good,” said Brian Fullam of Salem. “Everybody in the whole room seemed to like it.”

It’s not a new tactic for Trump – he’s been know to recite the lyrics at rallies from time to time. But unlike other taking points such as his plan for a wall and his self-funded campaign, it’s not something he does as often."
..............
Image caption: "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at Winner Aviation in Youngstown, Ohio, March 14, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein" 

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

 "Al WilsonThe Snake Lyrics"

"On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
 
"Poor thing," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
 
"Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake


She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside
with some honey and some milk
 
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taken to had been revived

 
"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"


She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight.

Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite.


"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake.


"I saved you," cried the woman


"And you've bitten me, but why?

 
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die."


"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin.


"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.


"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake"


"Songwriters: DUHIG, ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER/HARVARD, GLYN/FIELD, JON
The Snake lyrics © EMI Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group"


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

Comment: To me, the tender hearted woman is the American people, and the grinning, poisonous snake is the US political class, in particular the Bush family and the GOP Establishment. Which certainly includes John Kasich, former Lehman Brothers official, currently "Republican" governor of Ohio.

==============

Added: Democrats prefer Kasich: "Republican" Ohio Gov. John Kasich is top choice of Democrats to be Republican nominee, per latest YouGov national poll, March 10-12, 2016. Donald Trump is top choice of Republican voters by wide margin:

"Kasich scores better with Democratic primary voters than any other GOP candidate (and if Democratic voters could choose the GOP nominee, Kasich would be the frontrunner)."...

3/14/16, "Trump breaks 50% in national support for the first time," today.YouGov.com, Kathy Frankcovic  

 












chart from YouGov
....................




.......
2500 hear Trump in Youngstown:

3/14/16, "Trump speaks to voters at campaign rally near Youngstown," WCMH TV, Columbus, Ohio

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s visit was marked by a large police presence, as well as approximately 2,500 people, who packed into the Winner Aviation hangar at the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport. Trump was joined by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie."...
...........




















3/14/16, Image caption: "Trump in Youngstown," WKBN photo


"Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer," casebriefs.com

"Held. No. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Justice Hugo Black stated that there was no statute that expressly conferred upon President Truman the power to seize the mills. There are no provisions of the Constitution, or combination of provisions thereof, which gave the President the authority to take possession of property as he did.

Dissent. Chief Justice Fred Vinson (J. Vinson) argued that we must consider the context in which the President’s powers were exercised – a national exigency. The President’s power to seize the steel mills derives from his duty to executive legislative programs the success of which depends upon the continued production of steel.

Concurrence.


Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) stated that Congress could not have more emphatically expressed its will that the executive seizure was not authorized than it did in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947.


Justice Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) said that when the President takes actions inconsistent with the will of Congress, his powers are at their lowest level. Then, he can only rely on his own constitutional powers minus any powers given to Congress on the same matter.


(Justice Douglas) The branch of government with the power to pay for a seizure is the only one that can authorize one -Congress. If we authorized the President’s act, we would be expanding his powers under Article Two.


Discussion. This case calls into question the extent and the source(s) of the emergency powers of the President, if any, under the Constitution."

...........
===============
.........

More on this case: 
...........
"Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer," 343 U.S. 579 (1952), US Supreme Court, decided June 2, 1952: 
...........
"To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The President promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations, and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in a Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed.

(a) Under prior decisions of this Court, there is doubt as to the right to recover in the Court of Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government officials for public use. P. 343 U. S. 585.

(b) Seizure and governmental operation of these going businesses were bound to result in many present and future damages of such nature as to be difficult, if not incapable, of measurement. P. 343 U. S. 585.

Page 343 U. S. 580

2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand. Pp. 343 U. S. 585-589.

(a) There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here. Pp. 343 U. S. 585-586.

(b) In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes. P. 343 U. S. 586.

(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution. Pp. 343 U. S. 587-589.

(d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. P. 343 U. S. 587.

(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 343 U. S. 587-589.

(f) The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times. Pp. 343 U. S. 587-589.

(g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution "in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof." Pp. 343 U. S. 588-589.

103 F.Supp. 569, affirmed."...
 
===============
............

United States Supreme Court

YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, (1952)

No. 744

Argued:     Decided: June 2, 1952


To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The president promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed. Held:
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html#sthash.vifd7C81.dpuf

To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The president promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed. Held: - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html#sthash.vifd7C81.dpuf

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

No comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.