Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.
See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.
You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.
See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.
They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.
My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!
You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?
Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.
What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?
The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.
Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Amendment X:
"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."
Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.
Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.
Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
Do you mean you do NOT get your info from the primary source? DAMN!
You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.
See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.
They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.
This is so stupid it's self fulfilling. You're trying to live out a Star Wars fantasy in a Star Trek universe. Well, good luck with that.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.
Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.
Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.
JWK
“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence
"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."Do you always make shit up as you go along? Chief Justice Marshall wrote this in his closing remarks of his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (page 433):They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.
The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?
We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:
"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]
The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.
Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?
Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.
"In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed." [Emphasis Added]
You are in error yet again!
Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."Do you always make shit up as you go along? Chief Justice Marshall wrote this in his closing remarks of his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (page 433):They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?
We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:
"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]
The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.
Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?
Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.
"In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed." [Emphasis Added]
You are in error yet again!
My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.
Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Amendment X:
"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."
Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.
Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.
Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries?
The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."Do you always make shit up as you go along? Chief Justice Marshall wrote this in his closing remarks of his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (page 433):They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.
Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.
"In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed." [Emphasis Added]
You are in error yet again!
My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Amendment X:
"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."
Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.
Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.
Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries?
Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?
My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.
Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries?
Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?
Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!
You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."Do you always make shit up as you go along? Chief Justice Marshall wrote this in his closing remarks of his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (page 433):They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.
"In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed." [Emphasis Added]
You are in error yet again!
Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.
Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries?
Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?
Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!
Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.
Really, tell me exactly where I got it wrong.
Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.
The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,
Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.
I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries?
Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?
Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!
Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.
The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,
that can be changed.
Really, tell me exactly where I got it wrong.
Well, it looks like it all started back in first grade for you. Waking up this morning didn't help you any, either.
