Why the opposition to using ground troops?

[JohnStOnge]

If they were smart men, they'd recognize a need for an evolving constitution. Except they did.

They recognized the need to change the Constitution at times but they did that by including the Amendment process. There is no suggestion that they would have endorsed something like, for example, the Wickford vs. Filburn decision that opened the floodgates to Federal power to do just about anything by declaring that Constitutional power to regulate commerce between the States means Congress can make laws regulating anything that affects interstate commerce.

This thing where people say they wanted an "evolving" Constitution in the sense I think you are suggesting is crap. There's absolutely no evidence of that. As noted: They included a mechanism for changing the Constitution if it needed to be changed. There is no indication at all that they thought there would be a need for the Judiciary to "adjust" the Constitution so that it would "evolve" with the society.

[SuperHornet]

For me, it all goes back to Hap Arnold's bogus assertion that air power alone could win a war. Taken to the extreme, that argument allows one to win a war at a distance, without even looking at the enemy. At first, it was just bombers and perhaps some fighters to protect them and some refueling aircraft. (Or a one-way bombing run, a la the Doolittle Raid.) Today, that's been extended to include expensive missiles.

The problem with that reasoning is that from the beginning of war, the victor has had to actually OCCUPY the enemy's territory. The air power-only concept ignores that. The American response to the Kosovo ethnic cleansing proved that wrong: the enemy let the bombing happen, allowed the Americans to be portrayed as the world's bully, and then kept doing what they were doing when the US was unwilling to spend any more money shooting off million-dollar missiles. Germany found that out to its own detriment when their WWII bombing campaign failed to defeat the maritime United Kingdom. (Yes, the Brits were aided by the US Lend-Lease program and, later on, American military formations.)

The solution? As it's always been, one must win a land war with an army occupying the enemy's territory and decapitating (or at least effectively neutralizing) the enemy's leadership. Air power is a means to an end, and air superiority IS a key to victory. The same for sea power if the war involves territory bounded by a major waterway. Amphibious ops facilitate getting military formations to the fight (aided today by airlift), naval air guarantees air superiority over afloat maneuver units and assists the air fight ashore. But the ultimate goal is to get land units into the enemy's camp and beating his leaders. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be. Any attempt to rely on air power alone is doomed to failure, and any President who is deluded otherwise is doomed to failure.

[expandspanos]

Watch this Turkish TV drama created earlier this year (before the ISIS synthetic bullshit)

Notice anything interesting @ 33 Seconds in?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lp8vAQ3qAI[/youtube]

Does that look anything like this?:

Turkish Drama about a beheading created earlier this year:



"Isis Beheading David Haines"



Did they have the same director for this shit?

Americans will fall for ANYTHING.. Time to invade Syria!! British guy is fake beheading people... Time to invade Syria..

Oh, and why wouldn't they show the actual beheading, if they're going to show a supposedly bloodly head on top of his body?.. Anyone have an answer.. why "fade to black" during the "beheading" (that doesn't show any blood).. why the cut scene?

[houndawg]

You think a lot of things that aren't so Johnny boy, and you have the right to do so if you want to.

What I wrote in the language to which you are responding is so. I just said "I think" in order to be polite.

There's no way, none, that those people would've construed the Constitution as giving the Federal government the authority to do the things I listed.

Nobody who matters cares what those people thought John.

[kalm]

If they were smart men, they'd recognize a need for an evolving constitution. Except they did.

They recognized the need to change the Constitution at times but they did that by including the Amendment process. There is no suggestion that they would have endorsed something like, for example, the Wickford vs. Filburn decision that opened the floodgates to Federal power to do just about anything by declaring that Constitutional power to regulate commerce between the States means Congress can make laws regulating anything that affects interstate commerce.

This thing where people say they wanted an "evolving" Constitution in the sense I think you are suggesting is crap. There's absolutely no evidence of that. As noted: They included a mechanism for changing the Constitution if it needed to be changed. There is no indication at all that they thought there would be a need for the Judiciary to "adjust" the Constitution so that it would "evolve" with the society.

Then why did the founders write it in such vague terms, and why does the constitution itself not include instructions for how it is to be interpreted?

Not to mention the fact that sometimes the courts stand between people's rights and legislative over-reach. A checks and balances protection.

'The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas....They are organic, living institutions.'"

Oliver Wendell Holmes

[JohnStOnge]

Then why did the founders write it in such vague terms, and why does the constitution itself not include instructions for how it is to be interpreted?

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

As for writing it in vague terms: You can write something in vague terms in order to allow SOME judgement and interpretation in areas that are difficult to quantify in all circumstances without meaning to have the basic intent changed. And one can kind of flip the question. If they thought it necessary to have the Judiciary effectively change the effect of the Constitution through "interpretation," why did they feel it necessary to include the Amendment process? Why include a process that puts everyone through all that trouble if the intent was just to let a simple majority of the Supreme Court effectively change the Constitution at any time so that it could "evolve" along with the society?

[houndawg]

Then why did the founders write it in such vague terms, and why does the constitution itself not include instructions for how it is to be interpreted?

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

As for writing it in vague terms: You can write something in vague terms in order to allow SOME judgement and interpretation in areas that are difficult to quantify in all circumstances without meaning to have the basic intent changed. And one can kind of flip the question. If they thought it necessary to have the Judiciary effectively change the effect of the Constitution through "interpretation," why did they feel it necessary to include the Amendment process? Why include a process that puts everyone through all that trouble if the intent was just to let a simple majority of the Supreme Court effectively change the Constitution at any time so that it could "evolve" along with the society?

You're very lonely in your thinking. But I'm not at all surprised that you hold with those who were opposed to the Bill of Rights.

[kalm]

Then why did the founders write it in such vague terms, and why does the constitution itself not include instructions for how it is to be interpreted?

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

As for writing it in vague terms: You can write something in vague terms in order to allow SOME judgement and interpretation in areas that are difficult to quantify in all circumstances without meaning to have the basic intent changed. And one can kind of flip the question. If they thought it necessary to have the Judiciary effectively change the effect of the Constitution through "interpretation," why did they feel it necessary to include the Amendment process? Why include a process that puts everyone through all that trouble if the intent was just to let a simple majority of the Supreme Court effectively change the Constitution at any time so that it could "evolve" along with the society?

Why doesn't the constitution reference the Federalist Papers?

I haven't read them and should some time. I had a good buddy years ago who graduated in Poli Sci from Georgetown. He was very astute and suggested I read the FP. He was anything but an extremist nut. He was also a liberal with some moderate libertarian notions sprinkled in. Perhaps the Federalist Papers are open to interpretation like the constitution is.

[Skjellyfetti]

Then why did the founders write it in such vague terms, and why does the constitution itself not include instructions for how it is to be interpreted?

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

Eh.

Liberals will tend to look at the papers written by Alexander Hamilton and conservatives will tend to look at the papers written by James Madison.

It wasn't an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution. It was a DEBATE. And, it's the same damn debate we're still having: big government (Hamilton and Jay) vs. limited government (Madison).

Fuck, Hamilton argues against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84. Not an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution... clearly.

[CitadelGrad]

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

As for writing it in vague terms: You can write something in vague terms in order to allow SOME judgement and interpretation in areas that are difficult to quantify in all circumstances without meaning to have the basic intent changed. And one can kind of flip the question. If they thought it necessary to have the Judiciary effectively change the effect of the Constitution through "interpretation," why did they feel it necessary to include the Amendment process? Why include a process that puts everyone through all that trouble if the intent was just to let a simple majority of the Supreme Court effectively change the Constitution at any time so that it could "evolve" along with the society?

Why doesn't the constitution reference the Federalist Papers?

I haven't read them and should some time. I had a good buddy years ago who graduated in Poli Sci from Georgetown. He was very astute and suggested I read the FP. He was anything but an extremist nut. He was also a liberal with some moderate libertarian notions sprinkled in. Perhaps the Federalist Papers are open to interpretation like the constitution is.

Why would the Constitution reference the Federalist Papers? The Federalist Papers were written and published after the Constitution was drafted.

John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius. They were published in newspapers throughout the country as an argument for ratification of the Constitution.

There is nothing vague about the Federalist Papers. All three authors were key players in the constitutional convention and were very clear about the intent of the Constitution's articles. There wasn't a hell of a lot that was left to "interpretation".

[CitadelGrad]

Though it is torturous reading I think there is a very detailed set of treatise on how it should be interpreted. It's the set of Federalist papers. Those papers were written to provide a detailed explanation of how things were supposed to work so the people who were considering ratification could be convinced to vote "yes" on that. But my impression is that if someone suggests adhering to the intent one derives through looking at the Federalist papers they are labeled as an extremist nut. They're labeled as an extremist nut for suggesting following the explanations of how things were supposed to work written by the people who were "selling" the idea of adopting the Constitution.

Eh.

Liberals will tend to look at the papers written by Alexander Hamilton and conservatives will tend to look at the papers written by James Madison.

It wasn't an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution. It was a DEBATE. And, it's the same damn debate we're still having: big government (Hamilton and Jay) vs. limited government (Madison).

Fuck, Hamilton argues against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84. Not an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution... clearly.

The Federalist Papers weren't a "debate", you fucking idiot. All three authors were in agreement. That is why they published the papers under a single pseudonym.

Do you know why the Federalists were initially opposed to a Bill of Rights? They weren't opposed to the rights. They thought that it would just be understood that those rights were basic rights and unalienable. They didn't understand as well as the anti-Federalists did that the government would always seek to abridge or eliminate the rights of the states and people. Hence, the 10th Amendment.

Of course the Federalists were eventually persuaded to support ratification of the Bill of Rights, as they couldn't have been ratified without Federalist support.

[Ibanez]

Eh.

Liberals will tend to look at the papers written by Alexander Hamilton and conservatives will tend to look at the papers written by James Madison.

It wasn't an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution. It was a DEBATE. And, it's the same damn debate we're still having: big government (Hamilton and Jay) vs. limited government (Madison).

Fuck, Hamilton argues against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84. Not an overarching treatise on how to interpret the Constitution... clearly.

The Federalist Papers weren't a "debate", you fucking idiot. All three authors were in agreement. That is why they published the papers under a single pseudonym.

Do you know why the Federalists were initially opposed to a Bill of Rights? They weren't opposed to the rights. They thought that it would just be understood that those rights were basic rights and unalienable. They didn't understand as well as the anti-Federalists did that the government would always seek to abridge or eliminate the rights of the states and people. Hence, the 10th Amendment.

Of course the Federalists were eventually persuaded to support ratification of the Bill of Rights, as they couldn't have been ratified without Federalist support.

I would say they were part of a debate, maybe not a formal one from a pulpit, but still a public debate. Hamilton drafted the 1st letter in response to those by Cato and Brutus and other articles and essays critical of the Constitution. Madison and Jay were in collaboration however its important to point out that 2 or 3 were a direct collaboration between Hamilton and Madison. The Federalist letters were an aggressive campaign to explain the new Constitution. Outside of New York, they weren't well known and even NY, when it came time to vote to send delegates to the convention, the Federalists were the minority.

It is worth noting that during the state debates for ratification, the articles served as a handbook for anyone debating the subject( as described by Albert Furtwangler, who wrote a great book on the Papers in the 1980s.)

[CitadelGrad]

The Federalist Papers weren't a "debate", you fucking idiot. All three authors were in agreement. That is why they published the papers under a single pseudonym.

Do you know why the Federalists were initially opposed to a Bill of Rights? They weren't opposed to the rights. They thought that it would just be understood that those rights were basic rights and unalienable. They didn't understand as well as the anti-Federalists did that the government would always seek to abridge or eliminate the rights of the states and people. Hence, the 10th Amendment.

Of course the Federalists were eventually persuaded to support ratification of the Bill of Rights, as they couldn't have been ratified without Federalist support.

I would say they were part of a debate, maybe not a formal one from a pulpit, but still a public debate. Hamilton drafted the 1st letter in response to those by Cato and Brutus and other articles and essays critical of the Constitution. Madison and Jay were in collaboration however its important to point out that 2 or 3 were a direct collaboration between Hamilton and Madison. The Federalist letters were an aggressive campaign to explain the new Constitution. Outside of New York, they weren't well known and even NY, when it came time to vote to send delegates to the convention, the Federalists were the minority.

It is worth noting that during the state debates for ratification, the articles served as a handbook for anyone debating the subject( as described by Albert Furtwangler, who wrote a great book on the Papers in the 1980s.)

I don't think you understand what fucktardjellybelly wrote. He indicated that the Federalist Papers weren't part of a debate, but were actually a debate between Jay, Madison and Hamilton. Clearly, they were not.

[andy7171]

My brother, virtually, has his boots on the ground in Iraq He is in LAR I will not divuldge anymore info on him. He is very willing to fight for his family, friends and every one in America so that no one will ever witness what he has seen or done. His is proud and fighting for us. I pray that the leadership will allow hime to do what it takes to succeed.

[Ibanez]

I would say they were part of a debate, maybe not a formal one from a pulpit, but still a public debate. Hamilton drafted the 1st letter in response to those by Cato and Brutus and other articles and essays critical of the Constitution. Madison and Jay were in collaboration however its important to point out that 2 or 3 were a direct collaboration between Hamilton and Madison. The Federalist letters were an aggressive campaign to explain the new Constitution. Outside of New York, they weren't well known and even NY, when it came time to vote to send delegates to the convention, the Federalists were the minority.

It is worth noting that during the state debates for ratification, the articles served as a handbook for anyone debating the subject( as described by Albert Furtwangler, who wrote a great book on the Papers in the 1980s.)

I don't think you understand what fucktardjellybelly wrote. He indicated that the Federalist Papers weren't part of a debate, but were actually a debate between Jay, Madison and Hamilton. Clearly, they were not.

No, I understand what he's saying, hence my post of how they were written to educate the masses on the Constitution. Plus, I threw in that tidbit that only 2 of the articles were a clear and direct collaboration between Hamilton and Madison. Perhaps, you didn't understand what I wrote.

[Ibanez]

My brother, virtually, has his boots on the ground in Iraq He is in LAR I will not divuldge anymore info on him. He is very willing to fight for his family, friends and every one in America so that no one will ever witness what he has seen or done. His is proud and fighting for us. I pray that the leadership will allow hime to do what it takes to succeed.

I hope his work is completed promptly and safely.

Spoiler: show

(Edited b/c I read LAR as Lar, Iran and not Light Armored Recon)

[CitadelGrad]

I don't think you understand what fucktardjellybelly wrote. He indicated that the Federalist Papers weren't part of a debate, but were actually a debate between Jay, Madison and Hamilton. Clearly, they were not.

No, I understand what he's saying, hence my post of how they were written to educate the masses on the Constitution. Plus, I threw in that tidbit that only 2 of the articles were a clear and direct collaboration between Hamilton and Madison. Perhaps, you didn't understand what I wrote.

There was very little direct collaboration between the three authors; however, they reviewed and approved the drafts of the others before they were published. That is why they were all willing to have their papers published under the same pseudonym.

The hillbilly fucktard seems to believe that the three authors were debating with each other in the Federalist Papers, meaning that he has never read them or did not even remotely understand them or their purpose.