[gutzmank]

Originally, both houses of Congress had unlimited debate. The House moved to its current limited debate early in the 19th century.

The Senate, on the other hand, remained a bastion of endless gabbing until early in the 20th century. At that point, it allowed members to cut off debate by 2/3 vote. The current 60-vote requirement for cutting off debate was adopted in the wake of the 1960s civil rights laws.

[gutzmank]

Very kind of you. You’re welcome.

[gutzmank]

The magazine CHRONICLES had superb coverage of the Balkans wars in the ’90s. If you can get your hands on back issues, look there.

[gutzmank]

Shinobu, the idea was that although Reagan’s wing of the party had won the nomination, the Establishment-Eastern-moderate wing remained significant and needed to be placated. Of course Reagan didn’t know that he was bequeathing upon us an endless succession of Rockefeller Republicans named Bush, or else he might have chosen a different moderate as his running mate. Still, one mustn’t confuse Daddy Bush with Reagan.

On the other hand,, while the GHW Bush-Scowcroft-Baker wing of the party was not the Goldwater-Reagan wing, we’ve seen in the two Iraq wars that Daddy Bush was not W. W is a new and far worse phenomenon, it seems to me. If we’re to suffer under Jeb, let us hope he is more like his father.

[gutzmank]

One more thing: Obama had to fire McChrystal, because the general had publicly criticized the president. Again, whatever one thinks of the politician, a general who does that has to go, immediately.

[gutzmank]

I agree with Tom. The chief positive attribute of the American constitution is that the military has been subordinate to the civilians since the Revolution. No matter what proportion of the flag officers disapprove of the president, he’s in charge. Washington insisted on this principle during the Revolution and after, whether by telling British negotiators that they needed to go to Congress with their proposals, by resigning his office at the war’s end, by breaking up incipient mutinies, or by insisting that membership in the national Society of the Cincinnati not be hereditary. Whatever we may think of his performance as president, Washington remains America’s greatest man because of this overwhelmingly important legacy.

[gutzmank]

Beth, you can find Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on these matters by looking at his “Memorandum on the Bank Bill” (1791) and/or “Kentucky Resolutions” (1798). James Madison’s can be found in his “Bonus Bill Veto Message” (1817), “Virginia Resolutions” (1798), and/or “Report of 1800.” All of these can be found online, though perhaps with slightly different titles.

Besides Jefferson and Madison, you can find other founders’ opinions regarding the extent of congressional authority in my JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA; VIRGINIA’S REVOLUTION: FROM DOMINION TO REPUBLIC, 1776-1840; and THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION.

[gutzmank]

These neocons know perfectly well that Ron Paul has never claimed to be an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist.

The idea that Ron Paul is arguing that America shouldn’t have accepted French help in the Revolution is just doltish. It’s clearly a lie, akin to “Vote for me, and I’ll give you a telephone.” This is how stupid people think we are nowadays.

The column to which you pointed is full of inanities, so I don’t want to waste time replying to every point. Let me just tackle one more: the response to Ron Paul’s claim that the Founders were non-interventionist by saying that Hamilton didn’t agree with Jefferson and Madison. This is a non sequitur: if I say, “Joe and Jim like Toyotas,” and you respond, “But one’s a Democrat and one’s a Republican,” what does that contribute to our mutual enlightenment? Yes, the Founders had disagreements. Yet, none of them wanted to go invade Portugal.

[gutzmank]

In fact, as I show in both VIRGINIA’S AMERICAN REVOLUTION and JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA, George Nicholas (one of the three Federalist leaders in the Virginia Ratification Convention) sold the Constitution as a contract. He explained this at length, adding that in case Virginia’s stated understanding of the Constitution were not adhered to by the other signatories, Virginia would have the right to reclaim the powers it was granting the Federal Government (that is, secede).

He then went to Kentucky and became that state’s first attorney general.

[gutzmank]

The states may apportion their electors in whichever way their respective legislatures decide. In the first several elections, quite a few states’ legislatures cast their votes without taking any kind of popular vote. South Carolina didn’t have a popular vote for presidential electors until Reconstruction.

Maine and Nebraska presently award one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the winners of their state-wide tallies. It was common in the Early Republic for electoral votes to be allocated that way.

[gutzmank]

Why would it have made any sense for the British to try to invade the Union if the Confederacy had won its independence? The Union had a gigantic army — far larger than anything the British could have amassed in Canada. Given half an excuse, the Union likely would have “liberated” the Canadians from monarchical government, as was tried during the Revolution (for real) and War of 1812 (as a bargaining chip — purportedly).

If the Confederacy had won its independence, how would the British have invaded the South from Canada?

I’ve never heard of any of this. I think there’s a reason for that.

[gutzmank]

One way to go is to google “equal footing doctrine.”

[gutzmank]

I recommend two outstanding books by Raoul Berger on this topic:

1) GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; and

2) THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Also helpful is the section on 19th-century attempts to amend the Constitution to add a “separation of church and state” principle enforceable against the states in Philip Hamburger’s SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. In short, the dog didn’t bark: that is, advocates of the principle *never* said “we don’t need an amendment because we have the Incorporation Doctrine.”

[gutzmank]

The list should be VA, NY, and RI. I don’t know how MD came to be in that second list, and Regnery told me years ago that they’d correct that problem; I can’t account for their not having done so.

You can find the statements from Virginia’s and New York’s ratifying conventions in the relevant volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION: volume X for Virginia’s, volume XXIII for New York’s. As to Rhode Island, I think I took the claim from Graham’s A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF SECESSION, but I don’t have my copy at hand.

[gutzmank]

Presidents, Cabinet secretaries, and members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress will have only the granted powers, and it does not give the Federal Government an arbitrary power to decide which Korean will rule South Korea. Ergo, I would not vote to do so.

Since the Civil War was a war to deny the CSA the right to secession, it was an anti-constitutional war.

[Author]

Posts