jcd11235

After re-reading the phrase "law of nations" in the context that it's used in the Constitution, and looking up/comparing it against Vattel's Law of Nations, I believe that Tom's interpretation of what the Framers of the Constitution meant when they drafted-in that phrase is the correct one. Vattel's work may very well have insinuated the term "law of nations" into then-pop culture as more-or-less synonymous with "accepted principles of civilized international law". But the Framers did not intend the use of that phrase to essentially "incorporate by reference" the entirety of Vattel's treatise into the Constitution; according to accepted principles of constitutional and statutory construction, if that's what the Framers had intended, they would have expressly said so. I disagree. T Founding fathers explicitly used the term treaties in Article II and Article VI. Had they meant that in Article I, they would have used that term there, instead of the title of a book on governance that they not only knew about. It is absurd to consider that they would make such a blunder. Reference a treatise by name, with proper capitalization, in proper context leaves little doubt that the Founding Fathers were referencing that treatise. Contextually, interpreting the Law of Nations as a reference to international law does not make sense, nor is it consistent with Article II's treatment of the President's authority with respect to treaties or Article VI's pronouncement that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Why would Congress need to define offenses against international law? If it's international law, and the United States are a party to the treaty from which the authority of the international law is derived, then the international law is the supreme law. It would be pointless for Congress to define the offense against international law, unless empowered to do so by the treaty. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We seem to have similar experiences. It ended differently for us though. I claim the same amount of confidence on my argument also. I agree that alcohol is the largest problem now. It will more than likely still be the largest problem with legalization of drugs. It will more than likely assist in a greater drug problem with legalization. There was a study done in Great Britian and it indeed showed that alcohol was more dangerous than some drugs: http://health.howstuffworks.com/drug-ranking.htm But alcohol was not at the top. It was fifth. There are more links at the bottom of that page to click on. I don't typically use HowStuffWorks for information about drugs. I think you'll find

Interesting that you would use the Declaration of Independence as a red herring rather than address the points made about the Constitution. I did that because it was the first of the founding documents that I pulled up side by side comparisons of the original and modern capitalizations. After I had made a list of the capitalized words in the first couple paragraphs, I figured that anyone could easily see for themselves the original texts (on the page I linked), and understand the point I was making. To specifically address your point: The phrase "law of nations" is capitalized in the original text, because it was the custom at that time to capitalize such phrases. In the accepted modernized capitalization, it is not capitalized. If you want a list of words and phrases that were capitalized in the original section to which you refer, and are generally not capitalized in a modern capitalization, here it is: … And so forth. This does not indicate any special intention by the framers to emphasize the phrase you are picking out, at least not any more than any of the other capitalized words or phrases (for example "To"). The use of the phrase "law of nations" in the constitution is a reference to the body of international law. It is not an attempt to include an entire published work by that name into the constitution by reference. Again, you ignore the larger point that the founding fathers chose to use the term treaty in Article II instead of some nondescript description like "law of nations." Some of founding fathers knew of Vattel's work. It is absurd to believe that they used the title of a well known treatise on governance as a reference to international law while describing the powers of Congress. Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so clumsy that they would make such an obvious mistake? Call me skeptical, but I believe they were more careful with their phrase selection. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Oops. You did say that. My apologies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm pretty sure that I also specified respected, not just peer reviewed. At any rate, from your peer reviewed journal: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT I believe it addresses your concerns regarding the collapse of the buildings. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Interesting that you would use the Declaration of Independence as a red herring rather than address the points made about the Constitution. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hmm... not half bad for being home sick and doped up on cold medicine. What'd I mess up on? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why would they need to "define" offenses against international law? Why capitalize Law and Nations? Certainly at least some of the Founding Fathers were familiar with The Law of Nations. They would have understood the potential for misinterpretation if they misused that particular phrase. On the other hand, international law was something of a foreign (so to speak) concept at that time. Treaties are mentioned, however, in Article II, where the President is given a figurehead position, backed by the advice, consent of the Senate. It's unlikely that they would used a term other than treaties in Article I, had the Founding Fathers been referring to such a similar concept. If you can read both the clause and Vattel's work and seriously not understand how that relates to Congress having been entrusted with a great deal of power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

While the social improvements are obviously an important part of any counter-insurgency, you have to make sure that they're social improvements that the people want. For example, we might view eradicating the opium fields of Afghanistan as a "social improvement". The Afghans would view it as robbing them of their livelihood and would flood to the Taliban side of the fight. Similarly, while we view making education and opportunities available to more women to be a good thing, many Afghan men do not, and could view it as yet another reason to join in the fight to eject us from the country. I don't disagree. I just wanted to point out that SSTR cannot be looked at as sequential steps. They must be understood to be a holistic interaction from the very beginning when war is being planned if success is to be expected. The problem with considering things like eradicating the opium fields as a social improvement is that it won't be perceived that way by the locals, and it is from their perspective that we need to consider things. They live where the war is at. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

On what basis do you consider only "CONSUMER", but not government, spending to increase economic activity? After all, the government is also a consumer in the economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Ibiza Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Oh, the irony! In which respected, peer reviewed journal was that study published? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We should have thought about that before we threw our support behind the mujahideen "freedom fighters" During the Reagan & Bush I administrations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that statement? Thanks! It's already been elaborated upon here, quite competently. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I see you didn't follow the suggestion of examining the Law of Nations clause to see how much more power the Founding Fathers entrusted to Congress than the libertarian tin-foil hatters acknowledge. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Many of the problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted from trying to view those as two separate, sequential steps. If we really want to finish off the war, we have to make social improvements. The R in SSTR is arguably the most important aspect of all if we are to be successful. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Japan serves as an excellent example of the unnecessary costs of delaying government action. Not acting at all would be catastrophic for this country. While I recognize that many want to see the US fail, so they can blame it on the black guy in the White House (conveniently overlooking the fact that he's cleaning up the mess left by his predecessor), some of us would like our country to succeed. If so, it was only by reducing regulation in the financial market. It stands to reason that a successful recovery will involve government intervention and regulation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've always considered the translation to be, "In wine, truth." Of course, I wasn't referring exclusively to wine or alcohol in my post. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps you should examine more closely the Law of Nations clause in Section 8 of Article I. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

this pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced : is this your bag? | he soon knew that this was not the place for him. • used to introduce someone or something : this is the captain speaking | listen to this. • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”) : this is different from that. referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : the company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing this about. adjective (pl. these) used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced : don't listen to this guy | these croissants are delicious. • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”) : this one or that one? referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : there was a court case resulting from this incident. sed with periods of time related to the present : I thought you were busy all this week | how are you this morning? • referring to a period of time that has just passed : I haven't left my bed these three days. informal used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing previously unspecified : I turned around, and there was this big mummy standing next to us! | I've got this problem and I need help. adverb [as submodifier] to the degree or extent indicated: they can't handle a job this big | he's not used to this much attention. PHRASES this and that (or this, that, and the other) informal various unspecified things : they stayed up chatting about this and that. this here informal used to draw attention emphatically to someone or something : I've slept in this here bed for forty years. ORIGIN Old English, neuter of thes; related to THAT and THE. Now, if you would be so kind as to translate the following sentence to English: Yes, it would have been a poor job it this is what they intended Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

But how could the bank know whether the person can afford a mortgage or not until the person provides them with some income value? Of course the banks did not check those numbers in some cases, and will pay for that. But at the end it's the people who applied for those loans and provided an inflated income figure. The terms of the loans were in place before the borrowers signed. Sure, they should have read the terms more carefully, left themselves financial outs in case the terms differ from those discussed verbally, and more thoroughly investigated the potential effects of a downturn in the housing market. Still, lenders have a responsibility to their investors to engaging in responsible lending practices, including not lending money to people without first verifying their ability to repay. America's consumers have traditionally had a built in safeguard against over-borrowing. The banks generally wouldn't allow them to do so, because they wanted their money back. If the originating lender is not concerned with the borrower repaying, because he has plans to resell the mortgage, then that safeguard no longer prevents borrowers from borrowing too much money. It doesn't excuse borrowers for taking out loans they couldn't afford, but they accepted offers that never should have been made. The lenders screwed up when they offered the mortgages. Only after that did the borrowers have the opportunity to sign for a mortgage they couldn't afford to repay. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That one appears to have been covered by Amendment One. .....and torn apart by our courts..... Hardly, at least with respect to religion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The founding fathers did a poor job of enumeration of Congress' powers if that is what was intended. Do you think GM and Chrysler might have potential customers in more than one state? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That one appears to have been covered by Amendment One. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is simple. Show me under which article Congress or the President has the power to do it. From Article II, Section 3: "… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …" From Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; … To make Rules for the Government … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. I don't see any reason to doubt the constitutional authority for Congress to pass TARP or for the President to execute its provisions. It has to be challenged in court before the Judicial branch can determine something to be unconstitutional. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!