OT - Politics

Page 7 of 15  


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 or more.
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.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You may want to read up on Hamburg and Cologne, as well.

That's my point about FDR attempting to get the US into the war in Europe early on.

Starting those wars didn't prevent anything bad from happening. Ending them did.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But those are combat casualties only, and do nto take into consideration starvation.

Most people who advocate an indefinite blockade aren't considering the one million Japanese troops on the Asian Mainland.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: <SNIP>

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 enunmerated powers.

They are an attempt to regulate economic outcomes and are doomed therefore.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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 such power.

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.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

We already have that.....It is called a constitutional amendment.......Not particularly easy but always possible. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's only partly correct...

.. 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.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

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 fit.
If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the final arbiter of law, go ahead.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Damn, this puppy has legs if nothing else.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We hope that they are wooden legs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:16:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"

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.

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

And I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad", I asked you what agency was responsible for addressing that particular issue if it was not the Supreme Court.

And the US Supreme Court does not have "the final say". It can have decisions overrulled by Congress working in conjunction with the state legislatures.

So if you think it's busted tell us how to fix it.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"

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.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah, motive does not determine the government's proper domain.
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.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.