California Regulates College Hookups With New Law

California governor Jerry Brown, in answer to the alleged “rape epidemic” on campuses recently signed the new “affirmative consent” law. It will require a verbal “yes” at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.  I have a few legal questions. Can this requirement be waived if the participants sign a pre-coital contract? Is sex sufficient consideration for the contract to be valid under California law, or must other consideration be exchanged? If other consideration is exchanged, does the contract become illegal solicitation? Should I consult my legal team before my grandson goes on dates in California? Does the law apply to same sex couples? If the law does not apply to same sex couples, can college students sue the State of California under the Equal Protection clause to get the law ruled unconstitutional? Is being expelled for failure to stop on command cruel and unusual punishment? Is stopping on command torture under international law? I have a few more, but you get the general idea. 

At this point, another commenter suggested that the written contract possibly could be invalidated at any time by an audible “no” for either of the involved parties. This surprised me.  I assumed, perhaps in error, that a written contract would be enforced. However, perhaps there is a penumbra in a written contract that allows retraction on demand. This would be a good point to bring up with my legal team in a pre-dating consultation with my grandson.

Here's a link to the article I reacted to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389798/left-storms-californias-bedrooms-jonah-goldberg

Why Democrat's Election Wipeout? Lies

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period." That sentence was perhaps the biggest Presidential lie since the end of the Vietnam War, which our Dear Leader told knowingly and repeatedly like a mantra. The Big Lie was used to sell Obamacare, which was the Chicago Machine Prodigy's biggest and most important priority. The grossly false character of the statement became obvious as Obamacare rolled out. It wasn't even on the same planet as the truth. At that point people began to look at all of the other lies the Smartest President Ever was also spouting from his prepared, teleprompter remarks. People doubted all of his excuses for all of his scandals. His constant pattern of not knowing anything about the scandals until he read about them in the papers was repeated for every succeeding scandal. The excuses came to be seen as evading responsibility through lies. Then came the realization that his excuses for Benghazi were lies specifically crafted to get through the 2012 election without making any real explanation of anything. The Administration even withheld where the President was and what he was doing during the 13 hour attack that left 4 Americans dead. Voters felt that the 2012 election win was based on a pack of lies. They felt cheated. At this point, the falsity of almost everything Barry the Magnificent said or promised in 2012 means anything he says now is not believed or trusted. The President has a built up a deep well of distrust which will mean he can accomplish almost nothing in the rest of his term. Nobody will make a deal with the Punahou Prince, because they will be almost certain he won't keep any of his promises. 

Cap and Trade For Bureaucratic Regulations

I don't think it will take 30 years to halt the growth of the regulatory state. A single cap and trade bill and a slight change in court regulatory rules will do it. First, limit the total volume of government regulations and force bureaucrats to bargain with each other over which regulations are most important. If the government wants to add new regulations, they have to remove old regulations to make room for them. In addition, there needs to be a legal change in the deference federal courts give to regulatory agencies. Right now, regulations are given almost no court review because the regulatory agency is assumed to know what they are doing. The law should be instead that regulatory agencies deserve review on the relevance of the regulations to the original law authorizing the regulations. Regulators should be required to demonstrate that the effects of the new regulations will be to solve the problem they are supposed to solve at a reasonable cost compared to the benefits. Obviously, court injunctions would be allowed to delay the imposition of new regulations until they can be reviewed. With these two innovations, we will be using two of the Liberals' favorite mechanisms to restrain regulation. Liberals designed cap and trade to destroy conventional energy production.  They have always used the courts to stall construction projects with endless environmental lawsuits.  Under my scheme, when the regulatory process grinds to a halt, it will fall on the bureaucrats and courts. 
Aticle I reacted to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390434/thirty-years-war-kevin-d-williamson

Zombies are a Key Demographic For Chicago Democrats

Zombies are a key voting demographic for Democrats here in Chicago. They are no information voters and also eat other voters' brains. You guys down in Louisiana should watch out in the coming Senate Runoff Election.