Some revisionists clearly have.
If you compare the civilian casualty estimates published in the 1950's
for the bombing of Cologne, Hamburg, and Dresden with those currently
in vogue you will find that they have been reduced by a factor of ten
That doesn't tell us which was closer to the truth.
It has also been argued that although the US did not directly attack
Japanese agricultural production, the destruction of the Japanese
rail system crippled Japan's ability to move food from rural to
urban areas. Had the war NOT ended by September, the rail
system could not have been repaired in time to prevent up to 25
million civilian deaths from starvation over the following winter.
I'm not convince that the Japanese could not have mitigated that
through labor intensive low-tech means, even foot traffic. But
there is no rational doubt that the rapid end to the war after the
atomic bombing saved millions of lives in Japan as well as
on the Asian Mainland where fatalities among Chinese, Japanese,
and Soviets were in excess of ten thousand per day.
Also, my father was scheduled to be in the second wave for the
invasion of the Japanese mainland.. He was on a train, broken
down in West Texas on it's way to Bakersfield, CA when Truman
dropped the bomb, quite probably saving MY life as well.
You must be a blissful individual.
FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.
The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling machinery and oil
for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US port. Did more for the economy than
simply make-work and printing money.
It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs had
had an opportunity to work on that?
Clearly, even when government acts *within* its proper domain, it can
have economic effect. It simply has no permission to act to *specifically*
achieve economic outcomes.
It is indeed. But it exists in a context. Its context is the history
of its creation and the intent of its authors ... who did not, as
a group, intend for the Federal government to be granted a blank
check by hiding behind the general welfare clause. This is not some
wild interpretation on my part. This is well supported by the history
of our nation's laws.
SCOTUS is not the final authority on this matter. The Constitution is.
Agreed. But Madison wrote his piece on the general welfare clause not
with the authority of a President, but with the authrority of
a Framer who was there for the Federalist Papers debate and the crafting
of the Constitution in the first place. He *knew* what the intent was
on both sides of the Federalist debate (having actually written some
of the Federalist material and then later backing away from it).
The general welfare clause is simply not supportable as a source for
granting the Federal government unlimited power as you imply.
Yes is forbidden as is anything not enumerated as a power of the
Federal go ernment.
From Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS has taken power unto itself not
granted explicitly by the Constitution. What they forbid is, at least
in some cases, irrelevant. We do not need SCOTUS to weigh in on this
one. The Constitution is crystal clear about the doctrine of
They are an attempt to regulate economic outcomes and are doomed
If we can afford to. Economics is not bounded by national borders.
Americans unable to earn sufficient amounts because of punative
foreign tariffs would not be able to buy foreign goods. Econ 101.
I do not understand your point here.
Because tariffs distort natural economic forces to no good end.
It is better to trade openly and honestly even if the other party
wants to play economic games. They will eventually lose that battle.
Again, you are missing the central point. We already have an very
abusive soak the rich scheme. Fair Tax at least makes it more
proportionally fair and administratively simple.
The same thing as if everybody gets "pissed off", quits their job
and stops earning taxable income. i.e., It is a fantasy.
I see. So they can in fact take actions that benefit the economy. So
where's your problem?
And yet you could not find one Supreme Court ruling to support your
case and instead started bashing the Supreme Court.
It is a greater authority than James Madison.
One of more than 200. Did they all agree with him?
I see. So now it's "the intent" that matters, not the content.
So we have coming from you that the words contained in the
Constitution have no force in law, but the opinions of the people who
wrote it do have force in law.
And yet you said earlier that the large scale procurement during WWII
that had a beneficial effect on the economy was acceptable. So which
is it, is it forbidden or not?
More Supreme Court bashing. I'm sure that when you get your case in
front of them they're going to be real impressed with "You should rule
this to be unlawful because you are irrelevant".
Hint--the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution. It gives you no
Tell it to the Chinese.
And when the US ceases to have the largest single economy in the
world, then that might become an issue.
Honesty for once.
Why would they "lose that battle"? You seem to think that if China
manages to drive the US into bankruptcy that's bad for China.
So an "administratively simple" "soak the rich" scheme is OK?
Nope. Very different scenario. If everyone quits their job then they
have no income and they go hungry. If everyone decides to be frugal
then they all have income and all have food on the table and their
savings grow and the goverment has no income at all.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
SNIPPING all kinds of silliness from all sides
I have read the document thoroughly, including all amendments thereto
and just can't seem to find that part of the document that gives the
Supreme Court that power. Seems to me that the Supreme Court "found"
that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison, and has used it
ever since. Only one President seemed to clearly choose to ignore that
concept - Jackson, when he simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling
regarding removal of indians from tribal lands. What the SC says is
meaningless if ignored by the executive who is not then impeached by
the legislative branch or is ignored by the legislative branch which
answers to nobody (until the next election). Oh, how easy the whole
deal could crumble if the various branches ever decide to really push
an issue against one another.
SNIPPING of more meaningless drivel
Seems to me that it's not necessary to look very hard to find it, either: "The
judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution..." [Article III, Section 2]
Certainly one problem is that the checks and balances on the power of the
Supreme Court are few and far between. Perhaps a solution would be an
amendment granting the President the power to veto a Court decision, with
Congress able to override the veto as they can now in the case of a bill.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
The President commands the armed forces, Congress controls the purse strings.
Both are inherently political. The Courts are insulated from partisan politics.
They can only decide cases presented to them, and their only power is that of
the pen. You fellers ought to consider those facts before advocating a system
that would scrap a person's right to a trial by jury and the right to an
attorney, where the President rather than the courts would decide private cases
without even giving the parties the benefit of a trial, and where Congress, that
eternal fount of infinite wisdom, has the final say on those private cases.
.. because the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to restrict the
Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, i.e. what cases are presented to them.
The areas in which the Court has *original* jurisdiction are limited to "all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party". Congress could, if it wished, effectively
prevent the Court from hearing any appellate cases at all.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
So in your opinion when there is some question as to whether a
particular statute violates the Constitution there is some _other_
agency of government that is responsible for making the determination?
If so, what agency is that?
What you say about the SC being "meaningless" also applies to the
President if nobody decides to obey him and the Congress if everyody
ignores them and the Constitution as well. It can't even have a hissy
If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the
final arbiter of law, go ahead.
I didn't say that I thought that the Supreme Court making such
decisions was "bad", I was simply commenting on the statement that
"the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution". This concept was
in fact discussed in the Federalist Papers (#78 if memory serves) and
in the "anti-federalist papers" too (I've no idea which one) and the
anti-federalists had it right by saying that they believed the
judicail powers given by the Constitution would make the Supreme Court
an oligarchy and despotic. Certainly nothing in prior governmental
structures allowed the judiciary to have final say as to what was
legal or not. British judiciary (upon which our judicial system was
essentially based) can have decisions over-ruled by parliment. The
fact of judicial review was conceptual and theoretical until Marbury
v. Madison established it and nobody impeached the Justices for their
actions and everyone decided to abide by the decision. It was indeed a
risky decision at a time when this type of governmental structure was
new and had a real possibility of failure if any group tried to take
too much power.
Again, you read my comments wrongly. I certainly am not advocating
any such thing. I am simply pointing out the fragility of the
structure. It was far more fragile back when Marbury v. Madison
established judicial review and was still quite fragile when Jackson
blatantly ignored the SC and Congress allowed him to. It is
considerably less fragile now, but with the presidency trying to take
more and more power and the judiciary making up laws as they see fit,
while congress seemily simply ignores the constitution and makes up
federal authority as they want (commerce clause indeed), there are
some stresses showing. Clearly, I think most people can agree that the
strong federal govenment structure that we have today has no
resemblance to the fairly loose union of soverign states originally
established by the Constitution. Some of that change was done
officially via amendments to the Constitution, while most was done by
usurption of authority that was accepted by all branches of the
government and the vast majority of citizens (based on the lack of
action to stop it), but never formalized as amendments.
I guess that you are talking about a constitutional amendment every
time the Supreme Court rules on a case in a manner enough people
dislike. Could make the charter of the EU look simple beside what the
Constitution would become under such a concept. But, YOU ARE CORRECT,
we do indeed have the power to override the Supreme Court.
You mean if I was in charge ;-)
Clearly the "fix" would be far more complicated than can (or certainly
should) be debated in a woodworking newsgroup. The original concept of
a group of soveriegn states united under a federal government whose
purpose was to be in charge of international affairs and squabbles &
interactions between or among the states seems better to me (The
United States ARE instead of the United States IS). I am not
intelligent enough to even postulate a reasonably achievable means of
getting that particular genie back in the bottle though and I am
pretty sure that most Americans don't actually want it back that way.
We do in fact have the government that most of us apparently want.
That's not accurate. To override the Supreme Court would be to exercise a power
over the Supreme Court, saying a decision it made was wrongly decided under
existing law, and reversing the decision. A constitutional amendment wouldn't
do that. It would CHANGE the law, which is a much different thing. It wouldn't
even change the outcome of the case the SCT decided unless the change in the law
was retroactive, which is often not possible because of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto laws.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:20:49 -0700, Just Wondering
Yeah, semantically you are probably correct on the first part. The
effect would certainly be the same though. However, by the very nature
of a constitutional amendment anything in the new amendment would
override anything in the existing constitution, so if the amendment
stated that it was retroactive that would override the prohibition on
ex post facto application.
Nah, motive does not determine the government's
For instance, the government has athority to lift or
levy tariffs and taxes. If the government chooses to
tax white phosphorous in matches so as to eliminate
jaw necrosis in matchmakers, that just as constitu-
tional as doing so to raise revenue because the
Constitution does not restrict those powers on a
basis of motive.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.