Jimmy Carter's Solar Panels

[PoliticalChic]

Long term = fusion. How can private industry manage without the research funds only government can afford?

"How can private industry manage without the research funds only government can afford?"

Really?

"A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
On the Contrary - In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Don't see how your cites prove your premise. Show me a privately built and operated Tokomak or other fusion apparatus and we can talk. We've seen a lot about "cold fusion" lately, but even that technology isn't being jumped on.

1. If there are indicia of success, venture capital will follow.

2. Do you see a basis for government attempting to pick winners in a free economy in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

 

[rightwinger]

We should have listened to Carter and made the tough choices back in the 70s

Instead we listened to Drill Baby Drill and are no better off than we were 40 years ago

 

[konradv]

"How can private industry manage without the research funds only government can afford?"

Really?

"A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
On the Contrary - In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Don't see how your cites prove your premise. Show me a privately built and operated Tokomak or other fusion apparatus and we can talk. We've seen a lot about "cold fusion" lately, but even that technology isn't being jumped on.

1. If there are indicia of success, venture capital will follow.

2. Do you see a basis for government attempting to pick winners in a free economy in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

1. There have been indications of success. Where's the private Tokomak?

2. I see nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research. How does that equate to picking winners?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't see how your cites prove your premise. Show me a privately built and operated Tokomak or other fusion apparatus and we can talk. We've seen a lot about "cold fusion" lately, but even that technology isn't being jumped on.

1. If there are indicia of success, venture capital will follow.

2. Do you see a basis for government attempting to pick winners in a free economy in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

1. There have been indications of success. Where's the private Tokomak?

2. I see nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research. How does that equate to picking winners?

I assume "I see nothing in that article that prevents..." refers to the Constitution?
If so, the article under discussion specified what the government can do. That is all that is allowable. So, if the Constitution is actually the 'law of the land...' your "nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research" seems to have missed the point.

Read it again.
Then amendment 9: The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ten: 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.


It seems that our differing view on government involvement in the economy depends chiefly on political persuasion.

 

[konradv]

1. If there are indicia of success, venture capital will follow.

2. Do you see a basis for government attempting to pick winners in a free economy in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

1. There have been indications of success. Where's the private Tokomak?

2. I see nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research. How does that equate to picking winners?

I assume "I see nothing in that article that prevents..." refers to the Constitution?
If so, the article under discussion specified what the government can do. That is all that is allowable. So, if the Constitution is actually the 'law of the land...' your "nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research" seems to have missed the point.

Read it again.
Then amendment 9: The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ten: 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.

It seems that our differing view on government involvement in the economy depends chiefly on political persuasion.

I still don't see where what you cite PREVENTS the government from supporting research. A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO. I see no such list. As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited.

 

[westwall]

We should have listened to Carter and made the tough choices back in the 70s

Instead we listened to Drill Baby Drill and are no better off than we were 40 years ago

What tough choices back then? Had we gone over completely to a "green" energy system the country would have collapsed into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park. Why? Because it didn't work back then any better then it does now.

If we do now what you folks want the same thing will happen. Society will collapse and a lot of very nice innocent people will die because you people think you know whats best for everyone else. And just like the environmental catastrophe you inflicted on the state of California with your MTBE abortion the result nationwide would be the same.

You people never seem to learn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There have been indications of success. Where's the private Tokomak?

2. I see nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research. How does that equate to picking winners?

I assume "I see nothing in that article that prevents..." refers to the Constitution?
If so, the article under discussion specified what the government can do. That is all that is allowable. So, if the Constitution is actually the 'law of the land...' your "nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research" seems to have missed the point.

Read it again.
Then amendment 9: The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ten: 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.

It seems that our differing view on government involvement in the economy depends chiefly on political persuasion.

I still don't see where what you cite PREVENTS the government from supporting research. A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO. I see no such list. As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited.

1. The enumeracted items in Article I, section 8, are the only things the federal government may do...according to the Constitution.

2. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

a. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Op. cit.

b. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. Ibid.

3. The crony capitalism that we see today, whereby the administration gives taxpayer funds to 'promising' companies is just a refined Chicago-thug kick-back system...try to find out how many of the companies that get such funds have Democrat donors on their boards. They launder the funds via the company, then give 'campaign contributions.' Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.

4. One way to provide government aid is through the taxing provisions.

5 "A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO."
You misunderstand....the list of enumerated powers is of the ONLY things the government may do.

Possibly you now realize how far off the track government has gone.
Did you see any power to provide houses? Healthcare?

I see, Konny, that you interest is science....perhaps research....but I believe that an understanding of government should be important to you, as well. The following shows a deep, deep misunderstanding:
"As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited."

If you ask a specific question, and I'd be happy to anwer it from my perspective. Then you can check it yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

The terms "green" and "clean" are completely misleading when applied to manufacturing. First of all there are no green factories. "Green" technology is a myth. It is standard technology allegedly making "green" products. There is a big difference. The solar panel industry is a dirty chemical soaked dangerous process. Gigantic batteries that power "green" cars are made with dangerous heavy metals. You wouldn't mind if they produced something we can use but they are a lie. If you could get enough solar panels to make a difference in your heating bill you would cover a football field and you couldn't get your investment back for about half a century. If the freaking stuff really worked people would be standing in line to get it rather than watching the fraudulent excuses for "green" factories go bankrupt.

For silicon, the same process that we make our computer chips.

Lithium is a dangerous 'heavy' metal? LOL

Whitey, you are totally full of shit. In China alone, they have the capacity to produce 50 gw of solar cells a year. By percentage of increase, solar is the fastest growing energy sector in the world. And, as the panels continue to increase in efficiency, will remain so, barring only that cold fusion doesn't actually turn out to be feasable. A medium sized roof will produce enough power if covered with solar to completely power the home, and if grid parrallel, will probably get you a check at the end of the year.

So you claim to have two years of geology huh? I really doubt it MENSA BOY, here is a list of symptoms of Lithium Toxicity....followed by the course of treatment neccessary to SAVE THE PERSONS LIFE. SCHMUCK!


Signs of lithium overdose or poisoning are:

1. Persistent diarrhea.

2. Vomiting or severe nausea.

3. Coarse trembling of hands or legs.

4. Frequent muscle twitching such as pronounced jerking of arms or legs.

5. Blurred vision.

6. Marked dizziness.

7. Difficulty walking.

8. Slurred speech.

9. Irregular heart beat.

10. Swelling of the feet or lower legs.


Prevention! Prevention! Prevention!
However, if you detect lithium toxicity symptoms, drink lots of water and DO NOT TAKE ANY MORE LITHIUM. Go immediately to see your doctor or to a hospital emergency room.

If you do have lithium poisoning you will probably be admitted to hospital and cared for by a poisoning specialist.

Treatment will involve maintaining correct kidney functioning as much as possible by managing blood pressure, and replacing fluids and salt. Sometimes dialysis is necessary.

Lithium Toxicity Symptoms - Easy to Identify - Fatal to Ignore

Walleyes, what was stated was that lithium was a dangerous heavy metal. now i assume that you realize that being number 3 in the mendelev table is not exactly a qualification as a heavy metal.

Now I suppose I should post a toxicity chart for lead,as it is in batteries in all of our vehicles. No need to, however, the fact that we have used those safely for years as we will the many other chemical batteries, is apparent to all but the dimmest of wits.

 

[Old Rocks]

I assume "I see nothing in that article that prevents..." refers to the Constitution?
If so, the article under discussion specified what the government can do. That is all that is allowable. So, if the Constitution is actually the 'law of the land...' your "nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research" seems to have missed the point.

Read it again.
Then amendment 9: The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ten: 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.

It seems that our differing view on government involvement in the economy depends chiefly on political persuasion.

I still don't see where what you cite PREVENTS the government from supporting research. A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO. I see no such list. As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited.

1. The enumeracted items in Article I, section 8, are the only things the federal government may do...according to the Constitution.

2. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

a. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Op. cit.

b. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. Ibid.

3. The crony capitalism that we see today, whereby the administration gives taxpayer funds to 'promising' companies is just a refined Chicago-thug kick-back system...try to find out how many of the companies that get such funds have Democrat donors on their boards. They launder the funds via the company, then give 'campaign contributions.' Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.

4. One way to provide government aid is through the taxing provisions.

5 "A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO."
You misunderstand....the list of enumerated powers is of the ONLY things the government may do.

Possibly you now realize how far off the track government has gone.
Did you see any power to provide houses? Healthcare?

I see, Konny, that you interest is science....perhaps research....but I believe that an understanding of government should be important to you, as well. The following shows a deep, deep misunderstanding:
"As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited."

If you ask a specific question, and I'd be happy to anwer it from my perspective. Then you can check it yourself.

Well now, PC is stating that the government supporting research is Unconstitutional. So no militaty research allowed, correct? No research allowed in science that is publically supported, no matter how far other nations are getting ahead os us. PC, you are one silly friutcake.

 

[konradv]

I assume "I see nothing in that article that prevents..." refers to the Constitution?
If so, the article under discussion specified what the government can do. That is all that is allowable. So, if the Constitution is actually the 'law of the land...' your "nothing in that article that prevents the government from sponsoring research" seems to have missed the point.

Read it again.
Then amendment 9: The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ten: 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.

It seems that our differing view on government involvement in the economy depends chiefly on political persuasion.

I still don't see where what you cite PREVENTS the government from supporting research. A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO. I see no such list. As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited.

1. The enumeracted items in Article I, section 8, are the only things the federal government may do...according to the Constitution.

2. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

a. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Op. cit.

b. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. Ibid.

3. The crony capitalism that we see today, whereby the administration gives taxpayer funds to 'promising' companies is just a refined Chicago-thug kick-back system...try to find out how many of the companies that get such funds have Democrat donors on their boards. They launder the funds via the company, then give 'campaign contributions.' Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.

4. One way to provide government aid is through the taxing provisions.

5 "A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO."
You misunderstand....the list of enumerated powers is of the ONLY things the government may do.

Possibly you now realize how far off the track government has gone.
Did you see any power to provide houses? Healthcare?

I see, Konny, that you interest is science....perhaps research....but I believe that an understanding of government should be important to you, as well. The following shows a deep, deep misunderstanding:
"As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited."

If you ask a specific question, and I'd be happy to anwer it from my perspective. Then you can check it yourself.

I find your view to be very Leninist, i.e. anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually function under the rule, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. We're not expected to live our lives the way they did in the 18th century and it wasn't expected we would.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

If you think I'm misinterpreting things, then why wouldn't the USSC say so? I feel that, barring a general repudiation of a particular measure that's not specifically prohibited, the courts are saying those unmentioned powers are those reserved for the people with questions of how and why to be determined by the ballot box.

 

[westwall]

For silicon, the same process that we make our computer chips.

Lithium is a dangerous 'heavy' metal? LOL

Whitey, you are totally full of shit. In China alone, they have the capacity to produce 50 gw of solar cells a year. By percentage of increase, solar is the fastest growing energy sector in the world. And, as the panels continue to increase in efficiency, will remain so, barring only that cold fusion doesn't actually turn out to be feasable. A medium sized roof will produce enough power if covered with solar to completely power the home, and if grid parrallel, will probably get you a check at the end of the year.

So you claim to have two years of geology huh? I really doubt it MENSA BOY, here is a list of symptoms of Lithium Toxicity....followed by the course of treatment neccessary to SAVE THE PERSONS LIFE. SCHMUCK!


Signs of lithium overdose or poisoning are:

1. Persistent diarrhea.

2. Vomiting or severe nausea.

3. Coarse trembling of hands or legs.

4. Frequent muscle twitching such as pronounced jerking of arms or legs.

5. Blurred vision.

6. Marked dizziness.

7. Difficulty walking.

8. Slurred speech.

9. Irregular heart beat.

10. Swelling of the feet or lower legs.


Prevention! Prevention! Prevention!
However, if you detect lithium toxicity symptoms, drink lots of water and DO NOT TAKE ANY MORE LITHIUM. Go immediately to see your doctor or to a hospital emergency room.

If you do have lithium poisoning you will probably be admitted to hospital and cared for by a poisoning specialist.

Treatment will involve maintaining correct kidney functioning as much as possible by managing blood pressure, and replacing fluids and salt. Sometimes dialysis is necessary.

Lithium Toxicity Symptoms - Easy to Identify - Fatal to Ignore

Walleyes, what was stated was that lithium was a dangerous heavy metal. now i assume that you realize that being number 3 in the mendelev table is not exactly a qualification as a heavy metal.

Now I suppose I should post a toxicity chart for lead,as it is in batteries in all of our vehicles. No need to, however, the fact that we have used those safely for years as we will the many other chemical batteries, is apparent to all but the dimmest of wits.

Yes I realise the OP stated it was a dangerous heavy metal, yuo poohpooed his assertion and I clearly showed that it was indeed a very dangerous element which was his point. His misinformation on the specific nature of the metal was immaterial to his relevent point.

As a MENSA BOY you should have realised that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I still don't see where what you cite PREVENTS the government from supporting research. A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO. I see no such list. As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited.

1. The enumeracted items in Article I, section 8, are the only things the federal government may do...according to the Constitution.

2. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

a. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Op. cit.

b. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. Ibid.

3. The crony capitalism that we see today, whereby the administration gives taxpayer funds to 'promising' companies is just a refined Chicago-thug kick-back system...try to find out how many of the companies that get such funds have Democrat donors on their boards. They launder the funds via the company, then give 'campaign contributions.' Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.

4. One way to provide government aid is through the taxing provisions.

5 "A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO."
You misunderstand....the list of enumerated powers is of the ONLY things the government may do.

Possibly you now realize how far off the track government has gone.
Did you see any power to provide houses? Healthcare?

I see, Konny, that you interest is science....perhaps research....but I believe that an understanding of government should be important to you, as well. The following shows a deep, deep misunderstanding:
"As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited."

If you ask a specific question, and I'd be happy to anwer it from my perspective. Then you can check it yourself.

I find your view to be very Leninist, i.e. anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually function under the rule, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. We're not expected to live our lives the way they did in the 18th century and it wasn't expected we would.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

If you think I'm misinterpreting things, then why wouldn't the USSC say so? I feel that, barring a general repudiation of a particular measure that's not specifically prohibited, the courts are saying those unmentioned powers are those reserved for the people with questions of how and why to be determined by the ballot box.

Trying to help you, konny....as you simply know less than nothing about the Constitution. The enumerated powers are the only powers that the Constitution gives to the federal government. None other.

1. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

2. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

a. Judges, even Justices, are merely human, and often had used their inclinations to replace those of the Founders.

3. President Reagan, in the September 26, 1986 Speech at the Investiture of Rehnquist and Scalia, advocates the judicial restraint of Rehnquist and Scalia, as well as the traditions of Holmes and Frankfurther. To be clear, he is not praising a view in which passive judges defer to the political branches, but rather to judges who would be faithful to the written Constitution.

a. He adds this: “…Justice Felix Frankfurter, who once said, "The highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law.''


4. In fact, the impostition of judges views is so common, it is given a name: Lochnerization.

a. Lochnerization is a method to examine and strike down economic legislation under the guise of enforcing the Due Process Clause. Lochnerization was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 20th century. Lochnerization is derived from the decision in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905). Lochnerization also describes a method of legal reasoning where a court substitutes its policy judgment for a legislature in overturning legislation.
Lochnerization Law & Legal Definition

b. This case is often cited as an example of judicial activism in opposition to textualism, that is finding rights in the Constitution that are not in its wording.


5. Konny, do you think that judges' views should be given more weight than the Constitution?
If you do, then you are a proponent of the idea of a 'living Constitution.'

This, from Justice Rehnquist:

a. ". Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light....Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country.

b. [T]he living Constitution, however,
suggests that if the states’ legislatures and governors, or
Congress and the President, have not solved a particular social
problem, then the federal court may act. I do not believe that
this argument will withstand rational analysis."

Read his entire essay here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


So, you see, "I find your view to be very Leninist,.." now appears pretty silly...unless
you find Rehnquist, Bork, Reagan, and other originalists to be 'Leninists.'

I suppose you realize that you know very little about either the Constitution, or Lenin.
Rather than sticking such nonsense...pick up a book or two....educate yourself.

 

[MoistTrout]

Big changes are coming in the way that we create energy. And our 'Conservatives' will be against them, whatever those changes are.

You are correct Ray............

Short term = clean coal and natural gas.

Long term = we dont know yet as the technology hasnt been perfected. It will arraive years sooner ONLY if government does not interfere.

Long term = fusion. How can private industry manage without the research funds only government can afford?

First of all, the private industry can afford it far easier than the government. The government doesn't have money, tax payers give them money. I don't know if you've noticed, but the government has been pissing away the people's money the last few years and the people are getting tired of it.

Private industry has done quite well with wind power. Solar power has a heavy price tag when it comes to making the panels, putting them to use, maintenance, etc. Add to that governement regulations that make the price tag even bigger and enviromental groups throwing fits about where and how the panels are installed, it simply not worth it.

 

[konradv]

1. The enumeracted items in Article I, section 8, are the only things the federal government may do...according to the Constitution.

2. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

a. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Op. cit.

b. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. Ibid.

3. The crony capitalism that we see today, whereby the administration gives taxpayer funds to 'promising' companies is just a refined Chicago-thug kick-back system...try to find out how many of the companies that get such funds have Democrat donors on their boards. They launder the funds via the company, then give 'campaign contributions.' Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.

4. One way to provide government aid is through the taxing provisions.

5 "A list of things the government MAY DO, is totally different from one that things it MAY NOT DO."
You misunderstand....the list of enumerated powers is of the ONLY things the government may do.

Possibly you now realize how far off the track government has gone.
Did you see any power to provide houses? Healthcare?

I see, Konny, that you interest is science....perhaps research....but I believe that an understanding of government should be important to you, as well. The following shows a deep, deep misunderstanding:
"As for rights specifically reserved to the people, wouldn't funding research be one of them? We, as a nation, ARE the people and HAVE NOT as a people objected, so I don't see how that violates the amendment you cited."

If you ask a specific question, and I'd be happy to anwer it from my perspective. Then you can check it yourself.

I find your view to be very Leninist, i.e. anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually function under the rule, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. We're not expected to live our lives the way they did in the 18th century and it wasn't expected we would.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

If you think I'm misinterpreting things, then why wouldn't the USSC say so? I feel that, barring a general repudiation of a particular measure that's not specifically prohibited, the courts are saying those unmentioned powers are those reserved for the people with questions of how and why to be determined by the ballot box.

Trying to help you, konny....as you simply know less than nothing about the Constitution. The enumerated powers are the only powers that the Constitution gives to the federal government. None other.

1. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

2. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

a. Judges, even Justices, are merely human, and often had used their inclinations to replace those of the Founders.

3. President Reagan, in the September 26, 1986 Speech at the Investiture of Rehnquist and Scalia, advocates the judicial restraint of Rehnquist and Scalia, as well as the traditions of Holmes and Frankfurther. To be clear, he is not praising a view in which passive judges defer to the political branches, but rather to judges who would be faithful to the written Constitution.

a. He adds this: “…Justice Felix Frankfurter, who once said, "The highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law.''


4. In fact, the impostition of judges views is so common, it is given a name: Lochnerization.

a. Lochnerization is a method to examine and strike down economic legislation under the guise of enforcing the Due Process Clause. Lochnerization was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 20th century. Lochnerization is derived from the decision in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905). Lochnerization also describes a method of legal reasoning where a court substitutes its policy judgment for a legislature in overturning legislation.
Lochnerization Law & Legal Definition

b. This case is often cited as an example of judicial activism in opposition to textualism, that is finding rights in the Constitution that are not in its wording.


5. Konny, do you think that judges' views should be given more weight than the Constitution?
If you do, then you are a proponent of the idea of a 'living Constitution.'

This, from Justice Rehnquist:

a. ". Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light....Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country.

b. [T]he living Constitution, however,
suggests that if the states’ legislatures and governors, or
Congress and the President, have not solved a particular social
problem, then the federal court may act. I do not believe that
this argument will withstand rational analysis."

Read his entire essay here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


So, you see, "I find your view to be very Leninist,.." now appears pretty silly...unless
you find Rehnquist, Bork, Reagan, and other originalists to be 'Leninists.'

I suppose you realize that you know very little about either the Constitution, or Lenin.
Rather than sticking such nonsense...pick up a book or two....educate yourself.

You would cite Bork?!?! He's a proponent of a non-existent proposition called "original intent" presuming that all the FFs had the same intent, which is demonstratably not true.

I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false. The Constitution specifically states that all other powers are to be given to the states or the people. Therefore, it is up to the states or the people to decide whether a certain policy should continue, but I do not find any language that would suggest that the enumerated powers are the only ones possible. It's up to us to give them ot take them away, NOT the opinion of one radical judge or that of persons dead for the last 200 years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy

Technology »
Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:30pm EST

* Says other institutions better placed to carry on effort

* Announces six other projects it will cease supporting

By Alexei Oreskovic

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page's moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts.

Google said on Tuesday that it was pulling the plug on seven projects, including Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal as well as a Wikipedia-like online encyclopedia service known as Knol.

The plans, which Google announced on its corporate blog, represent the third so-called "spring cleaning" announcement that Google has made since Google co-founder Page took the reins in April.

The changes come as Google is facing stiff competition in mobile computing and social networking from Apple Inc and Facebook, and as some investors have groused about rising spending at the world's No.1 Internet search company.

"To recap, we're in the process of shutting down a number of products which haven't had the impact we'd hoped for, integrating others as features into our broader product efforts, and ending several which have shown us a different path forward," wrote Google Senior Vice President of Operations Urs Holzle in the blog post.

Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy | Reuters

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find your view to be very Leninist, i.e. anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually function under the rule, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. We're not expected to live our lives the way they did in the 18th century and it wasn't expected we would.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

If you think I'm misinterpreting things, then why wouldn't the USSC say so? I feel that, barring a general repudiation of a particular measure that's not specifically prohibited, the courts are saying those unmentioned powers are those reserved for the people with questions of how and why to be determined by the ballot box.

Trying to help you, konny....as you simply know less than nothing about the Constitution. The enumerated powers are the only powers that the Constitution gives to the federal government. None other.

1. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

2. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

a. Judges, even Justices, are merely human, and often had used their inclinations to replace those of the Founders.

3. President Reagan, in the September 26, 1986 Speech at the Investiture of Rehnquist and Scalia, advocates the judicial restraint of Rehnquist and Scalia, as well as the traditions of Holmes and Frankfurther. To be clear, he is not praising a view in which passive judges defer to the political branches, but rather to judges who would be faithful to the written Constitution.

a. He adds this: “…Justice Felix Frankfurter, who once said, "The highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law.''


4. In fact, the impostition of judges views is so common, it is given a name: Lochnerization.

a. Lochnerization is a method to examine and strike down economic legislation under the guise of enforcing the Due Process Clause. Lochnerization was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 20th century. Lochnerization is derived from the decision in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905). Lochnerization also describes a method of legal reasoning where a court substitutes its policy judgment for a legislature in overturning legislation.
Lochnerization Law & Legal Definition

b. This case is often cited as an example of judicial activism in opposition to textualism, that is finding rights in the Constitution that are not in its wording.


5. Konny, do you think that judges' views should be given more weight than the Constitution?
If you do, then you are a proponent of the idea of a 'living Constitution.'

This, from Justice Rehnquist:

a. ". Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light....Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country.

b. [T]he living Constitution, however,
suggests that if the states’ legislatures and governors, or
Congress and the President, have not solved a particular social
problem, then the federal court may act. I do not believe that
this argument will withstand rational analysis."

Read his entire essay here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


So, you see, "I find your view to be very Leninist,.." now appears pretty silly...unless
you find Rehnquist, Bork, Reagan, and other originalists to be 'Leninists.'

I suppose you realize that you know very little about either the Constitution, or Lenin.
Rather than sticking such nonsense...pick up a book or two....educate yourself.

You would cite Bork?!?! He's a proponent of a non-existent proposition called "original intent" presuming that all the FFs had the same intent, which is demonstratably not true.

I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false. The Constitution specifically states that all other powers are to be given to the states or the people. Therefore, it is up to the states or the people to decide whether a certain policy should continue, but I do not find any language that would suggest that the enumerated powers are the only ones possible. It's up to us to give them ot take them away, NOT the opinion of one radical judge or that of persons dead for the last 200 years.

"You would cite Bork?"
Have you read "Slouching Toward Gomorrah"?
Or any works of Bork's?

Please...don't tell me you haven't, but have strong views of the judge!!

I can't tell you have frequently ignorant folks do just that.
Are you determined to let others do your thinking for you?

"I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false."
Exactly the erroneous thinking that must be disabused.

There may be hope for you...but only if you decide to educate yourself.

 

[konradv]

Trying to help you, konny....as you simply know less than nothing about the Constitution. The enumerated powers are the only powers that the Constitution gives to the federal government. None other.

1. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

2. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

a. Judges, even Justices, are merely human, and often had used their inclinations to replace those of the Founders.

3. President Reagan, in the September 26, 1986 Speech at the Investiture of Rehnquist and Scalia, advocates the judicial restraint of Rehnquist and Scalia, as well as the traditions of Holmes and Frankfurther. To be clear, he is not praising a view in which passive judges defer to the political branches, but rather to judges who would be faithful to the written Constitution.

a. He adds this: “…Justice Felix Frankfurter, who once said, "The highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law.''


4. In fact, the impostition of judges views is so common, it is given a name: Lochnerization.

a. Lochnerization is a method to examine and strike down economic legislation under the guise of enforcing the Due Process Clause. Lochnerization was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 20th century. Lochnerization is derived from the decision in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905). Lochnerization also describes a method of legal reasoning where a court substitutes its policy judgment for a legislature in overturning legislation.
Lochnerization Law & Legal Definition

b. This case is often cited as an example of judicial activism in opposition to textualism, that is finding rights in the Constitution that are not in its wording.


5. Konny, do you think that judges' views should be given more weight than the Constitution?
If you do, then you are a proponent of the idea of a 'living Constitution.'

This, from Justice Rehnquist:

a. ". Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light....Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country.

b. [T]he living Constitution, however,
suggests that if the states’ legislatures and governors, or
Congress and the President, have not solved a particular social
problem, then the federal court may act. I do not believe that
this argument will withstand rational analysis."

Read his entire essay here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


So, you see, "I find your view to be very Leninist,.." now appears pretty silly...unless
you find Rehnquist, Bork, Reagan, and other originalists to be 'Leninists.'

I suppose you realize that you know very little about either the Constitution, or Lenin.
Rather than sticking such nonsense...pick up a book or two....educate yourself.

You would cite Bork?!?! He's a proponent of a non-existent proposition called "original intent" presuming that all the FFs had the same intent, which is demonstratably not true.

I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false. The Constitution specifically states that all other powers are to be given to the states or the people. Therefore, it is up to the states or the people to decide whether a certain policy should continue, but I do not find any language that would suggest that the enumerated powers are the only ones possible. It's up to us to give them ot take them away, NOT the opinion of one radical judge or that of persons dead for the last 200 years.

"You would cite Bork?"
Have you read "Slouching Toward Gomorrah"?
Or any works of Bork's?

Please...don't tell me you haven't, but have strong views of the judge!!

I can't tell you have frequently ignorant folks do just that.
Are you determined to let others do your thinking for you?

"I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false."
Exactly the erroneous thinking that must be disabused.

There may be hope for you...but only if you decide to educate yourself.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll go with modern judicial opinion. You bash me for my views, but they're very mainstrem. Where does that leave you? IMO, misinterpreting the Constitution just the as you say I'm doing, the only difference being that I'm in step with our society as it is, while you want to defer to the supposed "intent" of people dead for 200 years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You would cite Bork?!?! He's a proponent of a non-existent proposition called "original intent" presuming that all the FFs had the same intent, which is demonstratably not true.

I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false. The Constitution specifically states that all other powers are to be given to the states or the people. Therefore, it is up to the states or the people to decide whether a certain policy should continue, but I do not find any language that would suggest that the enumerated powers are the only ones possible. It's up to us to give them ot take them away, NOT the opinion of one radical judge or that of persons dead for the last 200 years.

"You would cite Bork?"
Have you read "Slouching Toward Gomorrah"?
Or any works of Bork's?

Please...don't tell me you haven't, but have strong views of the judge!!

I can't tell you have frequently ignorant folks do just that.
Are you determined to let others do your thinking for you?

"I think that that the notion that the enumerated powers are the only ones allowed is false."
Exactly the erroneous thinking that must be disabused.

There may be hope for you...but only if you decide to educate yourself.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll go with modern judicial opinion. You bash me for my views, but they're very mainstrem. Where does that leave you? IMO, misinterpreting the Constitution just the as you say I'm doing, the only difference being that I'm in step with our society as it is, while you want to defer to the supposed "intent" of people dead for 200 years.

1. You make an excellent self conscious point. Many on the Left require the security of the crowd.
Take care that 'in step' doesn't mean 'goose step."

2. "You bash me..."
I don't believe that I was doing any bashing,' merely explaining where I believe you err.
What kind of schooling did you endure where correcting a mistaken view was considered 'bashing'?


3. "...while you want to defer to the supposed "intent" of people dead for 200 years."

'Supposed'?

a. The Constitution can only be changed by the amendment process....not by judicial actions. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in Calabresi, “Originalism,” p. 262.

b. Actually, rather than the "intent," originalsts research the way terms were used at the time they were made part of the Constitution: As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

4. "...people dead for 200 years."
Excellent perspective, and, in fact, the very one taken by Justice Brennan.

a. Justice Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would you suggest ignoring any of these?….or do you simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.

b. While you might agree with Justice Brennan's view that Originalists’ presumption is was “little more than arrogance cloaked in humility,” one should consider which view is truly arrogant: Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.

c. Finally, the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want.

Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawerly sleight of hand.

The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences.

By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.


5. BTW..."The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitutional text....the only prerogatives of the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch) are limited to those granted by the Constitution of the United States."
Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Got that?

So, I'm not the only one to say it, huh?

The article goes on to say that said powers have been "expanded"...but not through the amendment process.
No...just as I told you...by the courts.

You might want to ask yourself why, if the 'expansion' could be sold as a great idea, to the people, why not use the legitimate basis for changing the Constitution?

Don't be afraid...go ahead and question.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC Bork Bork bork Bork Bork Bork

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC Bork Bork bork Bork Bork Bork

C'mon, Rocks....bring something to the table...

OK...I'll excuse you if it's turkey.
Have a good one.