TomAiello

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. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In the common usage of the english language at that time, capitalization was much more common than it is today. With roots in german (where every noun is capitalized), english has moved slowly over time to our modern form (with "proper" nouns only getting capital letters). For example, in the original text of the Declaration of Independence, all of the following words and phrases are capitalized. I don't think they were all references to specific published works, nor do I believe that any such works should be viewed as incorporated wholly into the document by reference: And that's just in the first three paragraphs. You can compare full text versions of the founding documents with original and modernized capitalization here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Surely there's an exception for union members? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I have done so. In fact, I just finished re-reading Vattel's Law of Nations in it's entirety, even though I do not believe the use of that phrase in the Constitution to be a direct citation to his work, but rather a general reference to what we, today, call "international law". I am totally unable to see why you feel that your citation of a clause relating to piracy and international law somehow relates to the discussion about the limits of Federal power, Can you explain clearly what relation you see there? Please do not simply throw out links to primary sources, or suggest that I re-examine the materials, and then conclude that the matter is clear. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that statement? Thanks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A simple solution would be to offer them an opportunity to emigrate to the US. I had thought that our soldiers were fighting and dying for our security--generally to protect us from the attacks of terrorists or foreign nationals. That is pretty much the purpose of our defense establishment. Sending them out to engage in social engineering in other countries? Pretty non-essential, in my opinion. I don't like their system. I wouldn't want to live in their system. But it is not my right to simply re-arrange the world to my tastes at the point of a gun. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The downside being any controversial legislation (or anything that any kook might object to) can be held up for an extra 6-12 months. Where I was living at the time, it was more like 4-6 years, actually. The trick is looking at who can call the legislation into a Constitutional question. It varied by country. In some, it was the President (before he signed it into law--and recalling that the President there was very different from the President here, most of whose functions belong to the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system), in others it required some number of MP's (congressmen, in the US), in at least a few there was a specially appointed person or committee (generally constitutional scholars meant to be impartial) who reviewed the legislation for constitutional issues. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think if gas hits $4 a gallon again, nationalization of the oil industry is almost a sure thing. But I think that we're going to see a big movement toward national healthcare well before that. It's always easy to whip up a frenzy against anyone who takes home more money than you do, and for the vast majority of americans, that means their family doctor. My guess is that healthcare precedes oil on the road to hell. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Tom if that were the case (and you're lucky as hell it's not) then virtually every bill would require a Constitutional Amendment due to parsing. The very concept of "that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed" is almost unique to the US. It is, in fact, what allows people (and Congress) to do "new" things. I don't think that Congress ought to be doing "new" things. Nor do I believe those things are within the scope of the Constitution as written, or as originally intended, or as interpreted for the majority of the nation's history. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Many moons ago, I lived in Eastern Europe, right about the time that it was emerging from Communism. At that time, some of the constitutions there (which had been freshly written) included a clause allowing any act of parliament to be routed directly to the Supreme Court, for a ruling on it's Constitutionality, _prior_ to it being enforceable. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

My money is on the oil companies. I'll take healthcare. Want to make a friendly wager on it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The founding fathers did a poor job of enumeration of Congress' powers if that is what was intended. I disagree. I think they actually did a pretty good job of enumerating the powers they intended the government to have, and laying out that they didn't want it to have any more powers than that. It's only in the 20th century that we really strayed way off the mark on that, starting in about the mid 30's. I honestly do feel we've strayed far from their intentions, or from a reasonable system of government that keeps us free and safe, but largely leaves us unmolested. Government power today is largely a device by which the majority imposes it's will on the minority, which is exactly what the founding father's sought to avoid. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

We're reading very different documents, then. When I read this bit: "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." especially when viewed in conjunction with this bit: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

1) I'm not a Republican. 2) I never said "CDIF" 3) WTF does CDIF mean? Is there some kind of political fingerpointing jargon manual that I can buy at Amazon to keep up with this stuff? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Only the legislation they are specifically not allowed to pass according to the Constitution. ALL other legislation is certainly within the description of things Congress is allowed to pass. In fact, that's how it's supposed to work. Certainly not the Judiciary and not the Executive either (although there are some ways around this). That's a huge side issue that deserves it's own thread. I strongly disagree with your statement that ALL legislation is within the scope of congressional purview. I'm pretty sure that the Constitution enumerates specific areas of responsibility and action for Congress, and reserves the rest (really the vast majority) of things, those "not delegated to the United States by the Consitution", for "the States respectively, or the people." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "a big part". Is "a big part" a significant factor or a determining factor? It appeared that you were painting availability as the determining factor is wide spread alcohol consumption. When you went on to point out that despite the same factor (availability), tobacco consumption was declining, it seemed illogical to me. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Pointing out the issues with a previous administration does not justify the problems with the present one. I'm really tired of hearing "it's all George Bush's fault" from the Obama team. Saying "but look at the bad things Bush did!" is an equally silly statement. It definitely does not address the issue at hand. Truthfully, I've come to expect better debate from you than that. Edit to add: I didn't like the Bush administrations penchant for foreign adventurism. I don't like the Obama administration's penchant for nationalization. I am not part of some vast right wing conspiracy, and I have no idea what this ODS thing you keep referencing is. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's an incredibly broad generalization, and far from being either true or simple. If, for example, it was true, we'd be better off if there was no machinery of any kind available for manufacturing or agriculture. That would result in more people working, wouldn't it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That is "said" by the Glass-Steagall act of 1933, which is an act of Congress. The President may not "say" things by act of Congress. He's not Congress. Rushmc's question is valid. He wants to know what specific power of the executive is invoked to warranty cars produced by a private corporation. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

>?? In your first statement, you implied that the ready availability of alcohol contributed to high rates of use. In your second statement you noted that the usage rate of tobacco appeared to be falling. Since tobacco is just as readily available as alcohol, this appears to contradict the second part of your first statement. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It seems like your second statement points out some flawed logic in the first. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Doesn't seem to apply to bridges however. Most toll bridges that I've driven on are state owned and maintained. Most toll roads that I've driven on are privately owned and maintained (generally by for-profit entities). I'd be curious to see what a private, for-profit toll bridge would end up looking like. I don't believe I've ever been on one. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm curious when the last time you bought a gun was? The last time I purchased a firearm, I had my ID run through both a state law enforcement system and a federal (FBI) instant check system. They ran computer checks against my background, and had some sort of psychiatric evaluation come back with warnings, it would have been posted in one or both places (along with criminal records and some other things like terrorism issues). I'm sure there are jurisdictions where there are no checks at all, but personally, I don't know where they are. I admit that you can purchase some firearms face to face with another private party (not a dealer, whether at a gun show or not), and that puts the burden of checking on the selling party, which is at it should be. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Cool. If I ever drive down your street, I'd be happy to pay the toll--so long as I don't have to double pay by paying taxes to maintain the road as well. Whenever I have the option, I take toll roads--they're invariably better maintained, have less traffic, and get me places faster than the alternate public roads. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

People tend to view funding things like the military (or police, or fire, etc) as "impossible" without mandatory government collections. I disagree, generally, but on a more specific real world level, I think that such things ought to be kept to the absolute minimum level, and further, ought to have costs recovered by user fees whenever possible. Remember that the actual cost of defending the territorial integrity of the nation is going to be a whole lot less than the current defense budget, since there is lots of "defense" spending that is really better viewed as foreign adventurism. For those purposes, if you wanted to allow such things (which I don't) you could allow a collection (if you support the invasion of country X, pony up some cash for the invasion fund). There are lots of possible alternatives there. Here are a couple options, off the top of my head (not that I'd espouse all of them): 1) Charge a user fee for things protected by the military. Fund your military out of the fees. If people don't use the things, then military funding falls. 2) Create a mandatory one-time fee for living in the "protected area" (in this case the US). You can ante up the cash when you reach your legal majority, or when you decide to move into the protected area. If people don't have the cash, you could offer them the alternative of providing their time (in other words, enlisting in the military) to pay their fee. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com