"The most important way to read the pro- and anti-federalist papers is as a debate on how the provisions of the Constitution would be interpreted, or "constructed". Those opposing ratification, or at least raising doubts about it, were not so much arguing against the ratification of some kind of federal constitution, as against expansive construction of provisions delegating powers to the national government, and the responses from pro-ratificationists largely consisted of assurances that the delegations of power would be constructed strictly and narrowly. Therefore, to win the support of their opponents, the pro-ratificationists essentially had to consent to a doctrine of interpretation that must be considered a part of the Constitution, and that therefore must be the basis for interpretation today. This doctrine can be summed up by saying, "if a construction would have been objectionable to the anti-federalists, it should be initially presumed unconstitutional".
You know he was born in Calgary not Toronto.............
abolish the IRS -- good
Ukraine is the EU's problem
I-P two state solution -- never gonna happen
Cruz is unelectable in a general election....... he is pulling a Dennis Kucinich for name recognition and to get his ideas in the GOP platform during the convention. You are too Rodent II to think strategically.
If you go back and read the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist papers......... the "modern" concept of Federal Government and compromise you mention would be hard to except in the founders time, due to the scope of modern Federal Government. Neither side wanted a Federal Governement this size and many warned of the potential for it to happen and the ills to individualism. Cruz is not that far off Washington and Jefferson's ideas, though close to Madison, Jay and Hamilton.
Bee.. I've been rolling it around in the back of my mind...while not quite there yet Rob Portman is slowly moving to a more libertarian way of thinking.
bee.. an easy answer then a qualifier to it. All those that voted against Orangeman and Turtleman as head of HR and S. qualifier .. S - Paul .. the balance of the folks that ran on personal/civil liberties sold out in the Senate. HR Amash and Labredor with Gohmert hanging on by a finger. I'm sure there are other smaller players but, those are the only ones coming to mind.
McCain was Panamanian,Obama was Keynan and now Cruz is Canadian. I'm loving the progressive birther hypocrisy.
Not many on the Federal level..... most are in the overlap area now. What many ran on as a platform for election is not what they are doing after being elected. I'm going to have to think about who I would still put in the libertarian side......but it will be a short list for Congress.
bee.. you need to separate the thumping "patriots" and the libertarian tea party wings..... they are not the same movement. It is akin to saying the progressive wing and the green party are synonymous on the "left". While both examples over lap in some desires.... the fundamental ideology behind each is different.
read the summary on
"WASHINGTON (CNN) — If you could create the perfect candidate to succeed Barack Obama as president, what would their background be and what would they think?
A new CNN/ORC poll finds most Americans say they would like a candidate who’s a seasoned political leader, someone with an executive background, and someone who’s willing to change Barack Obama’s policies."
Then read the poll questions used by CNN/ORC and see what is behind the results...
Rodent II, you are funny. If you had read the actual report...instead of stealing a DailyKos' bloggers work...you could have given Larry credit for his words.
"Final analysis pending
At the beginning of April, NSIDC scientists will release a full analysis of winter conditions, along with monthly data for March."
Once agian you jump the gun before that final report is out...... just like Ferguson.
I have faith that by the all star break, mgt will have traded any player showing promise. Just finished George Will's book on the baby bears and Wrigley....... You red dirt bound yet?
if both side hate it .. it most likely good policy. from the AP
The Obama administration said Friday it is requiring companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations.
A rule to take effect in June also updates requirements for well construction and disposal of water and other fluids used in fracking, a drilling method that has prompted an ongoing boom in natural gas production.
The rule has been under consideration for more than three years, drawing criticism from the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. The industry fears the regulation could hinder the drilling boom, while some environmental groups worry that it could allow unsafe drilling techniques to pollute groundwater.
I should add.. it was not a blog, it was from the teaching guide lines for a class at UoM----"Take the Self-Test for this lecture." at the bottom.
Guess you were too Rodent like to actually read the whole thing. You keep getting your twig and berries caught in your zipper, one day you will lose the.
PS, Have a nice weekend enjoying those close to you and not posting useless Slate blogs all weekend.......
"That is the relevant measure of whether an article is accurate." --- it is a better measure than the stuff you steal from DailyKos and Slate to post.
You already should know my view on peer review once a view has become unassailable and a money source for the sheep.
howdy Carl.......... Mo has already corrected about 10%, I'd guess it still has a way to drop. What's your guess?
You still giving Poly and his schizophrenia and sleep drug the once over?
Ecosystem and environment---- yes, but developed nations are tring to mitigate. And the key is standard of living, the poorer counties population are trying to survive and the need to survive day to day take precedence over "rain forest" kind of issues. No one that can afford it wants to increase pollution of air, water, or land to a level that endangers.... but those that cannot afford don't have much choice in the matter. Both side treat the issue as a zero sum game....... and imo both sides are wrong in their approach.
global warming --- my positions is --- the climate has always been changing, and the well meaning scientist that blame it all on man are full of B.S., does man contribute? How could we not, but the extent is open for debate. Once debate is stiffled, it morphs form science to religion. Also, if the earth is in a period of warming (man made, natural, or a combination of both) why is it such a bad thing? It has happened before and man adapted, the earth has cooled and man has adapted. Anamals adapt or don't ... evolution of the fittest. . I find both the religions of omnipotent God and omnipotent Man disturbing.