They just got #2 man in al Qaeda, and his henchmen, Thank God for Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

Abu Yahya al-Libi, al Qaeda deputy leader, killed in U.S. drone strike - CBS News

Clearly if you are chosing a point of orginalism then you would chose the ratification if the topic was Constitution. In his case ,Epstein notes that Hamilton ;who was as close to the progessives vision of big government as any of the founders, still understood that national government intervention in the commerce was restricted to the clear language of the Constitution. The founders intent ;which was undestood before the progressive era ,was that interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone. It was only with laws like the ones that Filburn objected to ,that the government breached into a central managed economy imposing price controls and creating government approved private cartels . Epstein of course goes into greater detail into the legislative and judicial history that lead us to today's national socialist economy in America.
Bigger than my beef in the direction the nation has taken is the clear distortion of the legal document that brought us to this point. The clear constitutional way to "reform " society would've been through the amendment process If they wanted Constitutional restrictions to the power of the central government revoked then they should've amended the language of the Constitution rather than distort the meaning of the language beyond all recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

They just got #2 man in al Qaeda, and his henchmen, Thank God for Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

Abu Yahya al-Libi, al Qaeda deputy leader, killed in U.S. drone strike - CBS News

---

And if the strike was a Bush era attack no doubt your party line would be that the US is violating sovereign Pakistani territory. I on the other hand give kudos to the attack that took out that scum regardless of who is the CIC . I'll give the President his moment to spike the football . Maybe he can make hay running on a tough war on terrorism platform now that he is surrendering the "war of necessity" . Oh wait... we don't have a war on terrorism anymore .We have overseas contingency operations.

If Hamilton, Madison or Epstein don't like it, there is a process to get heard by the Supreme Court. The only authorized interpreter of the Constitution.

Anything else is opinion, speculation, and high hopes.

Or high crimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If Hamilton, Madison or Epstein don't like it, there is a process to get heard by the Supreme Court. The only authorized interpreter of the Constitution.

Anything else is opinion, speculation, and high hopes.

---

Yeah that after the Supreme Court seized such power in Marbury V Madison. The fact that such a ruling has not been challenged doesn't make it sacrosanct.

So challenge it.

This is what Thomas Jefferson said of Marbury.
The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
Indeed they have elevated themselves to a branch of government that is not at all co-equal.

Clearly it is too late to reverse Marbury ,but I would amend the Constitution to put term limits on the black robed oligarch political appointees . Why the judiciary has been elevated to the level of power they've obtained is beyond all recognition of the republican and democratic ideas of the founders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And if the strike was a Bush era attack no doubt your party line would be that the US is violating sovereign Pakistani territory. I on the other hand give kudos to the attack that took out that scum regardless of who is the CIC . I'll give the President his moment to spike the football . Maybe he can make hay running on a tough war on terrorism platform now that he is surrendering the "war of necessity" . Oh wait ....we don't have a war on terrorism anymore .We have overseas contingency operations.

---

Apparently we don't have state secrets any more either.

Senate Democrats blast national security leak about cyberattack against Iran

But who cares as long as it makes Obama look tough, eh? And by the way, these cyberattacks were a Bush program - something else for the Great Obama to take credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Apparently we don't have state secrets any more either.

Senate Democrats blast national security leak about cyberattack against Iran

But who cares as long as it makes Obama look tough, eh? And by the way, these cyberattacks were a Bush program - something else for the Great Obama to take credit for.

---

Now Tom let's not have sour grapes, one President starts something and the next either cleans up the mess or exploits the opportunity, it was ever so. Obama is still wearing some Bush decisions, it is only right he gets some kudos out of things that go right once in a while.

I think his micromanagement might be a mistake, if it backfires he cannot distance himself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now Tom let's not have sour grapes, one President starts something and the next either cleans up the mess or exploits the opportunity, it was ever so. Obama is still wearing some Bush decisions, it is only right he gets some kudos out of things that go right once in a while.

I think his micromanagement might be a mistake, if it backfires he cannot distance himself

---

I'm not tom.

I predicted that he would essentially follow the Bush template in the War against Jihadistan .In some areas he has done so and I've given credit . Where he has deviated ,I've generally disapproved (the snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq... his attempt to engage the 12'ers... his surge and then quick announcing a date certain for defeat in Afghanistan [the necessary war in his rhetoric]) .
I'm thrilled he has continued the counter-terrorist attacks in Pakistan ,in the Arabian peninsula ,and in sub-Sahara Africa. I suspected his rhetoric was all bluster about closing GITMO ;and he has of course given up on the ridiculous notion of trials for foreign Jihadists in civilian court .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is what Thomas Jefferson said of Marbury.
The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
Indeed they have elevated themselves to a branch of government that is not at all co-equal.

Clearly it is too late to reverse Marbury ,but I would amend the Constitution to put term limits on the black robed oligarch political appointees . Why the judiciary has been elevated to the level of power they've obtained is beyond all recognition of the republican and democratic ideas of the founders.

---

Sorry Tom, but what else do you expect if you are a common law country with an overriding civil code. Given the passage of time this was always going to be a problem.

The real question here is who governs the country the supreme court or the congress, the executive doesn't seem to get a look in. It surely was not the intention of the constitution that the supreme court should govern the country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

the real question here is who governs the country the supreme court or the congress, the executive doesn't seem to get a look in. It surely was not the intention of the constitution that the supreme court should govern the country

---

The president governs through presidential powers. The congress can make laws to govern the people and the supreme court can seek placement of the laws. The president is the one who can sign a bill into law that has been passed through congress and if the president vetos then congress can overide by vote.

The supreme court is there to meet the constitutional test of the law. Each are a separate yet identical branch of the government with respective powers.

Sorry Clete, but the Koch brothers govern the country.

Koch family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Billionaire Koch Brothers' War Against Obama : The New Yorker

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales - Bloomberg

Koch Industries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the god the right wing worships, and pays tribute to. Now you know!

Tal is just upset that there is a special interest to match the power of the special interests behind the Democrat machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sorry Clete, but the Koch brothers govern the country.



This is the god the right wing worships, and pays tribute to. Now you know!!

---

Thanks Tal that is clear now I thought it was Burfett

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clearly if you are chosing a point of orginalism then you would chose the ratification if the topic was Constitution. In his case ,Epstein notes that Hamilton ;who was as close to the progessives vision of big government as any of the founders, still understood that national government intervention in the commerce was restricted to the clear language of the Constitution.
The founders intent ;which was undestood before the progressive era ,was that interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone. It was only with laws like the ones that Filburn objected to ,that the government breached into a central managed economy imposing price controls and creating government approved private cartels . Epstein of course goes into greater detail into the legislative and judicial history that lead us to today's national socialist economy in America.
Bigger than my beef in the direction the nation has taken is the clear distortion of the legal document that brought us to this point. The clear constitutional way to "reform " society would've been through the amendment process If they wanted Constitutional restrictions to the power of the central government revoked then they should've amended the language of the Constitution rather than distort the meaning of the language beyond all recognition.

---

Hi Tom,

I think we have been down this path before. You seem to be using Originalism and Original Intent as being one and the same. This is not a valid comparison. However, leaving that aside

You say:
"......interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone". Is this an example of clear language? How would you define, pretty much?

I don't think the Commerce Clause is an example of clear and precise language. In fact I don't think we can go past the word, 'commerce' before we run into trouble. You have an exact definition for the word, 'commerce?'

Before you throw in Humpty Dumpty in will repeat my previous argument. Those who control the language control the reality. In this particular instance, and every other, those who control the language are the people of that particular age.

The people who control the language of this age are the general public. Or what, reasonable people understand by the meaning of words. People of a different age would have had a sightly different meaning for the word. It is possible that 'commerce' as it applied to the past may prove to be incompatible or even a contradiction when examined in light of today's meaning.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Tom,

I
I don't think the Commerce Clause is an example of clear and precise language. In fact I don't think we can go past the word, 'commerce' before we run into trouble. You have an exact definition for the word, 'commerce?'

It is possible that 'commerce' as it applied to the past may prove to be incompatible or even a contradiction when examined in light of today's meaning.

Tut

---

Indeed, commerce in the eighteenth century included the trade in slaves so a loose intrepretation of the commerce clause would suggest the trade in slaves is permitted even if failure to pay people for the work they do isn't, or holding people against their will isn't