Free Republic

Ping! The Commonwealth Strikes Back!

Huh, who's gonna fly all the aboriginals from Australia all the way to Canada to apply?

Oh, don't be silly, Sam! Canada will simply have to hire more invisible minority pilots! Its all so simple...

Great response in #2! Also, Linda Tripp was trying to protect herself from an obvious conspiracy between Lewinsky and Clinton as they were heading toward a federal trial, whereas Wead is simply drumming up interest for a book that otherwise wouldn't get much outside of a niche market.

An Ontario job-seeker received a rejection letter recently, advising that only aboriginals and visible minorities need apply.

I have an invisible black friend named Demetrius. Can't he apply?

Yes. Although I refused to study French in high school and college since it is a sissified, dying language, I believe that any protest sign written in that jibberish is stating precisely what you say!

These people are obviously ignorant of the true legacy of Che Guevarra, and also strike me as cowards in the sense that they would rather have "the state" take care of them instead of getting a job and living a normal American life with homeownership, private enterprise, etc. Europe is doomed if this is truly indicative of any significant voting bloc, which unfortunately it appears to be. Poland and much of the rest of the former Soviet bloc will leave Germany and France in its dust in no time!

Have you ever worked professionally in an archival or historical setting where reading and thoroughly digesting such eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writings is required? I ask this in all seriousness, because I have, and its a frustrating, hair-splitting process.

Unfortunately, after a cursory Google search, I haven't yet found the entire letter or passage that this is taken from. I keep finding the truncated quote that you've offered. But, I have to think that from the word 'constitutions' and the reference to a lack of removal mechanism for judges, that Jefferson was not discussing the U.S. Constitution for three reasons: 1) The plural form leads me to believe he's discussing the several states' constitutions, many of whom preceded our federal document; 2) the U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment and removal of all federal officers; and 3) its not capitalized.

As I mentioned briefly before in an earlier reply, Jefferson and many other Founders feared the Judiciary more than the other two branches, and made sure that there were checks and balances (e.g. impeachment of judges; not being able to rule on a law until a relevant case is at hand) to prevent them from taking over the powers of the other two branches.

Also, be careful when reading passages from this time period. George Washington wrote of a 'lumber room' on the third floor of Mount Vernon, but its not where he stored lumber or firewood. Lumber referred to odds-and-ends, items that aren't used all that often, such as discarded furniture, toys, etc. When Jefferson wrote of the judiciary as "supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government," that is not relevant to the intentions of the Founders (unless you can find the rest of the letter in which he addresses that issue specifically), but rather, he's alluding to the fact that they don't initiate any laws or actions (i.e. its a passive body as opposed to the active Executive and Legislative Branches). He goes on to discuss the lack of a removal mechanism for corrupt judges, etc., which of course cannot be in reference to the federal Constitution since all federal officers are subject to impeachment and removal.

Wow! You really have some problems!

1.The US Army and Navy ALWAYS serve the People.

Uh, no, its not the People's Army of the United States, unlike in China.

2.During 'peace', the Army and Navy are not in 'actual' service, they are in some other unnamed state.

Uh, no. They are either at peace or at war. There is no ethereal unnamed state of being for the Armed Forces.

3.I don't believe the US military should be 'patrolling the sea lanes' (except our own coastline) or 'keeping hostile armies at bay', so that question is moot. If you want the Strait of Hormuz or the Indian Ocean 'patrolled', go do it yourself with your own money.

This response really shows your detachment from reality. One of the functions of the navies of all sea-going nations involved in international trade, for centuries, has been patrolling the sea lanes. Also, what do you think was the purpose of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who served in Germany during the Cold War? Keeping the Red Army from taking over! Duh!!! Providing for the common defense is one of the things our Constitution assigns to the federal government. Maybe you can ignore reality ("I don't believe the US military should be 'patrolling the sea lanes' (except our own coastline) or 'keeping hostile armies at bay', so that question is moot."), but that doesn't mean the rest of us can. You need to understand that your opinions don't outweigh the Constitution!

4.I don't refer to George Bush as the Commander in Chief. Perhaps 41 was close in Desert Storm, certainly more so than Vietnam or Iraq II.

Well, gee! Veritas doesn't refer to George Bush as C-in-C, so I guess we'd better amend the Constitution to strip him of that title.

5.It seems as though we do not have a Commander in Chief in times of 'peace'. Why would we need one? Do you really think George Bush knows more about how to maintain an Army than the Army Generals?

What are you babbling about? No C-in-C in times of peace? You are truly delusional! To whom does the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff report? Hmmm, President Bush or Veritas? I'm pretty sure I've seen reference to the former in various news articles, but not the latter.

Then we have this little misunderstanding on your part:

HenryLeeII: "Read Article II, Section 2 more closely, and you'll see that that refers to the state militias:"

Veritas: No. If that were the case, a comma would not appear between "the several States" and "when called into".

The section reads: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Notice that the Army and Navy are contained in one clause, not separated by a comma, as the Militia is separated. Its not written "...of the Army, Navy, and the Militia..." Also, if you've saved any elementary school English grammar books, you may want to look up 'subordinate clause' to read the reasoning behind the comma between 'several States' and 'when called into actual service...'

Also, you retorted, "The "power" to ask for War? I don't think of "power" to require further authorization or approval.

Since foreign policy (and declaring war on a country certainly is a change in policy) is the domain of the president/commander-in-chief, the Senate has never declared war without first being asked. Therefore, that is a power that has been added to the president/commander-in-chief's resume.

But, as we now stand, due to your insistence that the President is not the Commander in Chief during times of peace, and that we have a People's Army, I must amend your assingment to include primary sources for such radical revisions to our body politic, in addition to the primary source for your as-yet unsubstantiated claim that the Founders intended for the Legislative Branch to be the most powerful and the Judicial to be the weakest. Please finish these assignments before any further radical revisions to our Constitution.

I thought it was a Neil Young thread, too. I was going to reply, "F*ck Trans!"

Yeah, that is about the only one of his albums that I just can't listen to. But that's the sign of an artist: No two projects are the same, and not everything is going to be liked by all fans.

Back in the early-70s some enviro-whacko magazine writer attended a press briefing of his and started rambling on about the coming revolution brought on by our destruction of the environment. He asked Neil if he's going to participate and where he's going to be when it happens. Without thinking he replied "On my ranch, with my guns!" He marches to his own beat and doesn't care what everyone else thinks!

I don't like Zima either, but I just don't drink it anymore. Posting a thread with the picture of the convenience store clerk who sold it to you is a little excessive.

Don't be silly, Owl. Dead is obviously showing his disregard for the classic 1975 Neil Young & Crazy Horse album named for the beach where the idiosyncratic Canadian-born rocker used to have a home, before it burned down. Zuma introduced the longtime concert staple "Cortez the Killer," along with such nuggets as "Drive Home," "Stupid Girl," "Dangerbird," and "Barstool Blues." It is certainly one of Young's strongest albums from beginning to end, and is one of the great guitar albums of all time (leading to his designation as the "Godfather of Grunge").

This is sickening. Anyone who refuses to admit that our Western Judeo-Christian culture is superior to others is obviously ignorant of the facts of life in many other countries.

Here's a great new resource created by David Horowitz for tracking lefties and their ties to terrorists, pro-Dem organziations, etc.

Don't mess with people who are busy banging their own heads with swords :-)

LOL!!! Reply-of-the-day material for sure!

Oops, forgot: Do you think Ted Nugent would have any interest in developing this as a reality show?

Would we be allowed to use the .50 cal sniper rifle that the Dims are all a'twitter about?

Absolutely! Especially with an extra large clip, flash suppressor, and any other scary looking attachment that does little else besides scare bed-wetting liberals. Although fear tends to sour the taste of their meat.

Well, the advantage of the .50 cal sniper rifle is that they would have no opportunity to register any fear. It would be over before they heard the shot. But of course, given the sheer distance from our perch to the point-of-contact, opportunists will have ample time to bag our prey and make off with it. We'll have to go in packs so our spotters/retrievers can take care of the gutting, cleaning, dressing, and transporting of the trophy carcass before any glad-handers grab it and run off. Off course, we'll need an SUV nearby to throw it in and carry our equipment, so I'm recommending a camoflauged Humvee covered in "Goldwater/Reagan/Bush: In your heart, you known they're right!" bumper stickers with gun racks visibly adorning the rear and side windows.

Where does the Constitution say the President asks for War? Where does the Constitution talk about Executive Orders?

In the same section that says he is to appoint Secretaries of State, War, and Treasury. In other words, these are powers that evolved out of practicality. The Constitution was a skeletal framework designed to get the country established. Not all issues were addressed, and some were deliberately ignored as much as possible (slavery, national banks, etc.) in order to get it ratified with the intent that contentious issues were to be worked out later.

As far as asking Congress for war, the president is C-in-C, so the Senate cannot order him to go to war any more than he can declare war on another nation. Declaring war is a political action as opposed to waging war, which is a military action - they are two different things (and don't forget, most of our "wars" have been undeclared, such as the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan).

Look carefully at the words themselves, as well as the punctuation. The President only becomes commander in chief "only when called into actual service"...

Read Article II, Section 2 more closely, and you'll see that that refers to the state militias:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Had they meant to include the Army and Navy as falling under his command when they are called into service of the U.S., it would have read something like "...of the Army, Navy, and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual services..." The fact that Army and Navy are separated from Militia by a comma means that the "when called into the actual service" clause belongs with the Militia. Besides, 1) in whose service are the Army and Navy during times of peace? And are they not "in service to the U.S." even during times of peace, when they are busy patrolling the sea lanes, keeping hostile armies at bay with their sheer presence, etc.; and 2) why would every president be referred to as commander-in-chief when we haven't had a declared war since 1945, and not every president since then has seen an undeclared war? Who is the C-in-C during times of peace?

Recess appointments are strictly temporary and only may happen when the vacancy happens "during the Recess of the Senate". That doesn't mean a position that has been vacant for monthes can just be filled with the Senate goes home for Christmas break.

Again, read Article II, Section 2 more carefully:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Recess appointment last through the next Senatorial session, they don't end when the Senate comes back from recess. Besides, if I remember correctly, some of Clinton's recess appointments were for vacancies that happened before the recess began, and there are probably many other examples. Since when has Congress and the president worried too much over the precise wording of the Constitution? Heck, 80% of what they spend isn't authorized by the document!

Okay, on the tagline subthread, I probably jumped the gun, though I'm not sure I follow you anyhow. What is the point? Didn't the Soviet communists kill millions? How has the Democrat party come close to that?

My tagline reads: "Democrats have helped kill more Americans than the Soviets and Nazis combined!" The Soviets killed a hundred million or more, but my tagline refers to Americans killed. Between the approximately 55,000 American deaths in Vietnam (which was a mass-murder committed by the Democrats, as opposed to a war in which the military was allowed a chance to win by the Johnson administration), and the 40,000,000-plus deaths that have taken place in abortion mills around the country since Roe v. Wade (you can counter by pointing out which USSC justices were GOP-picks, but the sheer magnitude of pro-death votes by Democrats v. GOP congressmen leaves this horror at the feet of the former much more than the latter), far outstrips the number of Americans killed by the Nazis and Soviets combined. The point of my tagline is to highlight an historical fact that shows the true evil, destructive, anti-American result of an evil, destructive, and anti-American political party.

But, let's get back to the original point of our debate: You said that the Founding Fathers intended for the Legislative Branch to be more powerful than the other two and for the Judiciary to be the weakest. I asked you to provide primary source documentation to prove that, and you have not. Simply saying 'the Constitution itself' is the evidence is not sufficient for supporting such a bold and radical re-interpretation of the Founders' intent.

Dangnabbit. I'm kicking myself right now. In a rush to get out of the office and home to the family I dashed off my last response which included my sloppy mistake of saying that the E.C. freed the slaves in Union territory, when of course you are right in that it "freed" the slaves in territories that it did not at that time control. Thank you for your reply, and as I said, I'm applying the Size 10 Corrective Measure as I type...

I guess in writing your tagline, you forgot Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

Huh? My tagline mentions Democrats, Nazis, and the Soviets - how does Lincoln fit in any of those three categories? Even if Lincoln personally was responsible for every death in the Civil War, I am comparing Democrats to the other two leftist movements.

You point out that the Executive Branch has no powers independent of the Legislative, citing it as evidence of the latter's intended superiority of the former. But, the Legislative Branch has no power independent of the Executive, either. The president must ask for war; the president must sign legislation, etc. And if you want to bring up Congress' power to overturn a veto I'll counter with Executive Orders or interim appointments to fill posts without Congressional approval. However, as far as the main powers, each needs the other for completion.

And lastly, your assignment is incomplete. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch is superior to the Executive, and the Judiciary is subordinate to both? It doesn't. You can't be that sloppy and lazy when you make a statement as bold as you have and then I ask you to back it up with facts. I'll sink my teeth into the salient point like a rabid pit bull and you won't shake me loose!

Would we be allowed to use the .50 cal sniper rifle that the Dims are all a'twitter about? And, of course, the Chinese restaurants would have to be off-limits.

San Francisco would become the first city in the nation to charge drivers just for driving in its chronically congested downtown under a sure-to-be controversial proposal being aired today.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, chair of the San Francisco Transportation Authority, will ask the agency to study a downtown toll zone -- whereby drivers would need to purchase a daily pass to drive in The City's most congested streets -- as a potential solution to the Municipal Transportation Agency's woeful budget problems.

"The key issue here is if we can kill three birds with one stone -- relieve congestion, clean up the air, and give money to Muni -- we would have hit a home run," McGoldrick said.

I'm thinking that a municipal abattoir for registered Democrats and members of the Socialist, Communist, and Green Parties would be much more efficient at relieving congestion and cleaning the air. Plus, with the swag taken from the victims, err, I mean participants, the program would pay for itself and then some...