.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

What Would People Think?

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Seeking Help From My Readers

1. As I mentioned yesterday I can't figure out why various people are calling for a line-item veto when the line-item veto was declared unconstitutional back in 1998. It can't be simply that EVERYBODY'S that ignorant.

I'm asking for help from any of the legal-type folks who occasionally read my blog to help me figure this out. Zhubin, Amy, Erin, Matt Novak, Barzelay.....I'm looking at you!

2. I'm trying to pick a song list for my wedding reception. We got a DJ, and they have a relatively extensive list. There's so many songs I like....but I'm guessing that a reception full of Everclear and Jars of Clay won't make for much of a celebration.

I need some suggestions from people with impeccable (read: similar to my own) taste in music.

Mike, Jeff: I'm looking at you.

You go to this site, select "Wedding" then go to the song list.

posted by Ben at 10:20 PM

13 Comments:

  • I think Nine Inch Nails' "Closer", Guns n Roses' "Used to Love Her (But I Had to Kill Her)", and Jimmy Buffett's "Why Don't We Get Drunk and Screw" are absolute musts.

    In all seriousness, I would advocate sticking to a lot of normal stuff with just a few unusual songs. You know, have some stupid fun ones like the Chicken Dance, some classics like Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable", etc. I don't know, the DJ probably has a fairly standard list for you to choose from. I guess the point is there are certain songs (or types of songs) people expect at a wedding.

    Then, from the out-of-the-ordinary department, I pored through my entire music collection, and came up with the following list of vaguely romantic songs (and some of these are waaaaay out there):

    Alice in Chains, "No Excuses"
    Angie Aparo, "Hush"
    Barenaked Ladies, "Call and Answer"
    Blink 182, "All the Small Things"
    Blue October, "Calling You"
    Billy Joel, "Just the Way You Are" (cliché, but what the hell)
    Candlebox, "It's Alright"
    Carbon Leaf, "Life Less Ordinary"
    Counting Crows, "Accidentally in Love"
    Edwin McCain, "I'll Be"
    Elton John, "Your Song"
    Fire Escape, "Fire Escape"
    Foo Fighters, "Everlong"
    Foreigner, "I Want to Know What Love Is"
    Franz Ferdinand, "Do You Want To" (kinda fun)
    Genesis, "Follow You Follow Me"
    Goo Goo Dolls, "Iris" (another cliché)
    Green Day, "Redundant"
    Guided By Voices, "Teenage FBI" (not really, I was just so damn surprised they had it)
    Hoobastank, "The Reason"
    Incubus, "Stellar" (may get vetoed because of the "inside of you" line)
    Journey, "Faithfully" (cliché #3)
    Lifehouse, "Breathing"
    Metallica, "Nothing Else Matters"
    Monkees, "I'm a Believer" (Mike's desperate attempt at getting this version instead of the Smash Mouth one played)
    O.A.R., "Love and Memories"
    Peter Frampton, "Baby I Love Your Way"
    Peter Gabriel, "In Your Eyes" (obviously)
    Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Hard to Concentrate" (off the new album, first thing I thought when I heard it was, "Wow, what a great wedding song" - too bad the DJ doesn't have it)
    Sister Hazel, "All For You" (sadly, they don't have "Sword and Shield", but somehow I'm willing to bet Jeff will finagle that one for his wedding)
    Smashing Pumpkins, "Stand Inside Your Love"
    Snow Patrol, "Chocolate"
    Sunny Day Real Estate, "One"
    Beach Boys, "Wouldn't it Be Nice"
    Beatles, "Something"
    The Cure, "Love Song"
    The Eagles, "Love Will Keep Us Alive"
    The Postal Service, "Such Great Heights"
    The Verve, "Lucky Man"
    Wallflowers, "Closer To You"
    The White Stripes, "Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground"
    Toad the Wet Sprocket, "I Will Not Take These Things For Granted"
    Tom Petty, "The Waiting"
    Tonic, "Take Me As I Am"
    U2, "One"
    U2, "All I Want is You"
    Weezer, "Buddy Holly" (could be kinda fun)
    "Come What May", from "Moulin Rouge"

    I'm not sure how many of these would work at a wedding reception (in fact, most probably wouldn't), but they're ideas, at least. I probably spent too much time on that list, but oh well. Maybe you'll get one or two ideas out of it. Let me know what you come up with.

    By Blogger Mike, at 6/29/2006 12:45 AM  

  • First off, I think I recall hearing about the line-item bit. I think what I heard was that there was something specific about the type of line item veto that was once rule unconstitutional - like it was unreviewable by Congress or something. And that the ones that have been pushed for since have been more limited in scope. I don't really know for sure, but that sounds right - they just needed to narrow it, or provide some sort of remedy, or something like that, in order to maintain the check and balance dealy. I could go figure it out I suppose, but then I wouldn't be studying for the bar.

    Second, I'll get you some music suggestions. I'll check with my wife, (she's got a better memory than I do) since we had what was generally deemed to be an awesome dance at our reception. I assume you're going for dance, right? Not just background music... One solid suggestion I can make now is polka music. Man I love me the polka at wedding dances. You Southern types might not quite get that so much as we Minnesotans, but they're a ton of fun.

    By Blogger Matthew B. Novak, at 6/29/2006 1:16 AM  

  • I think the rationale Bush is using is that this version of the line-item sends the particular item back to Congress and makes them vote on it again, standing alone. Because he does not just tell them no, that's why he thinks it can pass constitutional muster. (at least, that's what he's saying so he can make congress look bad for not passing it).

    However, the problem is that it ruins the amendment process, the series of compromises that congress comes to that are part of the legislative process. The democrats could give up a few things to get their amendments in. Bush would pull out the Democrat amendments only and send them back to Congress, where they'd be voted down. All the majority party items would stay in, with no compromise on their part, and they could vote down the minority party's amednments with no problem.

    Cut taxes one place and raise them another? Not under the new and improved (and no more constitutional) line-item veto.

    Hope that helped at least make sense.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/29/2006 3:07 AM  

  • Mike - Thanks for the suggestions. I actually liked most of them. A few random comments.

    Did you mean Fastball as the artist for "Fire Escape"?

    Sorry, no heavy metal or metal-esque bands for my reception. Much as I like Metallica and Alice in Chains, they are out. "'80s Butt Metal" as Amy once called it, remains because that is not true metal and can be more fitting for a celebration.

    "Hush" - man what a GREAT idea!

    I don't mind a few cliches.

    Sorry, I like the Smash Mouth version of "I'm a Believer" better. Christy might side with you. She only likes whichever version of a song she has heard first. Of course, that means she would insist upon the Letters to Cleo version of "I Want You To Want Me." Sorry, Cheap Trick.

    By Blogger Ben, at 6/29/2006 7:34 AM  

  • Matt - Polka?! Good lord, is that what you yankees dance to? Can't you do more dignified dances like the Funky Chicken?

    Amy - Now that you explain it, I actually find Bush's argument more plausible than yours, legally speaking. Clinton v. New York was a very formalistic opinion. It was all about bicameralism (both houses pass it) and presentment (President signs or vetos). The old line-item veto lacked bicameralism because the President got to unilaterally cancel portions of a duly passed law. (Right? Or did Clinton's line-item veto also require Congress to pass upon it?)

    It may be that this still lacks the proper procedure. The Court may say, "it's all or nothing. Sign or veto the whole damn thing." But if they do so, I think it'll be out of a sense of formalism, not out of the policy arguments of politics/compromise that you make. Your arguments DO convince me that I don't want Bush to have a line-item veto, but not that it's necessarily unconstitutional.

    Thanks!

    By Blogger Ben, at 6/29/2006 7:39 AM  

  • I think, if I recall correctly, that even Clinton tried to pass this version of the line item veto, after his other one was shot down. Again, I could be way off the mark, but that seems somehow familiar...

    By Blogger Matthew B. Novak, at 6/29/2006 8:47 AM  

  • Okay, I have nothing to say on the line-item veto issue, but a music suggestion is in order, 'cause I was just at a wedding this past weekend...and Bruce Hornsby's "Circus on the Moon" was played. And it was a wonderful wedding song.

    Hope things are going well for you - good luck and best wishes!
    ~Jamie

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/29/2006 9:42 AM  

  • I know there are more than what I listed that will probably come to me -- I'll inform you as they do. Many of them might not be offered by the DJ -- what's the story on working in songs they don't have, if there even is one?

    Yes, I meant Fastball. The trouble of not proof-reading.

    I'm glad you're not taking Alice in Chains or Metallica, because those are mine anyway.

    Of course clichés are okay -- I even advocate sticking to them primarily. Just trying to guide you in certain directions.

    It's not that I don't like the Smash Mouth version, I just prefer the Monkees version -- it's got more of the 60s free-wheeling feel. And unless a later group's version is far superior, I tend to go with the originals. Either way, I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't forget it.

    Any songs on that list you've never heard? I will remedy the situation.

    Oh, and on the line-item veto: I know I'm not a lawyer, but I can still guarantee that the one they're trying to pass has been crafted to ensure that it could be seen in an alternate light from the one the Court ruled on. Have I mentioned that I am VEHEMENTLY against the line-item veto, and that I would say the same thing even if I agreed with every single thing the president did?

    By Blogger Mike, at 6/29/2006 10:10 AM  

  • Ben, bicameralism and presentment? I see you've been paying attention in bar study. We had Chemerinsky, so it felt like coming home.

    I disagree, even though I didn't get around to quoting the constitution, i'm governed by this phrasing.

    "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. "
    "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. "

    To me, there is a clear constitutional delineation between "bills" and "amendments" and nothing about presentment expresses the notion that the president has the power to return amendments, only bills. There is no "if he sorta approves" clause.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/29/2006 2:19 PM  

  • Barzelay, Barzelay, Barzelay.....you should know by now that I have long since ceased caring whether I am lame!

    Besides, "Twist and Shout" is cool. Although Dave Barry says the Isley Brothers version is better....I may be tempted to play that.

    And if Christy wants to do the Chicken Dance, we're doing the Chicken Dance. If she doesn't.....meh....I could take it or leave it.

    By Blogger Ben, at 7/01/2006 7:14 AM  

  • I have no idea on the constitutionality of the line-item veto, but I have two things to say:

    1) I have also had Chemirinsky for bar review, and does he really wield that many puns in his actual classes? They were each a discrete nightmare, terrible and whole.

    2) I remember that very Dave Barry article where he talks about how much better the Isley Brothers' version of "Twist and Shout" is!

    By Blogger Zhubin, at 7/02/2006 3:50 AM  

  • Actually, he NEVER did those puns in the Conlaw classes I took with him. I guess he figured humor was needed for 3-hour lectures.

    Jeff, you would have LOVED the puns.

    Zhubin, I've always known you have good taste in humor. (First sign - you're funny.) Now that has been confirmed.

    By Blogger Ben, at 7/02/2006 3:13 PM  

  • Hi Ben!

    If you wanna get the dance floor bumpin, you gotta include some rap music :).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/02/2006 8:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home