The Worst Of Both Worlds

To build on Litbrit's excellent post, if Congressional Democrats were really the bunch of liberals they're accused of being, they'd milk the Defund ACORN Act for everything it's worth - running to every TV network, even Fox News, to talk about it, start calling it the Defund [Halliburton, GE, Boeing] Act, writing columns and op-eds, holding hastily-scheduled town halls in their districts this weekend, daring conservatives to show up and protest their favorite defense contractors.

If I were Rep. Grayson, after this bill is inevitably vetoed or repealed or otherwise rendered completely ineffective, I'd introduce legislation that requires every government contractor charged with wrongdoing to immediately pay back 1% of the total contract in order to fund a new Cabinet-level Department of Combatting Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

Even though Congressional Democrats by and large are not liberals, if they were smart they'd do pretty much the same thing while privately assuring their corporate masters that it's all just a bunch of grandstanding to score points against Republicans, to not worry about the government gravy train perpetually directed toward defense contractors.

But they're neither liberal nor smart, so they'll hush this bill up as quickly as they can, leaving the GOP's unwarranted attacks against ACORN unanswered and the true criminal corporations of this nation unaccountable.

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

But they're neither liberal nor smart, so they'll hush this bill up as quickly as they can, leaving the GOP's unwarranted attacks against ACORN unanswered and the true criminal corporations of this nation unaccountable.

All too true. I'd be bothered a lot less by Business Dog Dems' being Business Dogs first, and Dems a distant second, if they could at least play this here game, and take advantage of obvious opportunities to stick it to the GOP.

And progressive Dems need to figure out some way of delineating, in the public mind, the differences between a real Democrat and a Business Dog.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Stephen:
requires every government contractor charged with wrongdoing to immediately pay back 1% of the total contract in order to fund a new Cabinet-level Department of Combatting Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

? Innocent until proven guilty ?

Not to mention the potential for blackmail. "Here's the papers on this complaint I'm filing against you. You and I know it's bullsh*t and once they investigate it they'll exonerate you. But it's still cost you $20 million because of that $2 billion contract you got. Or I could just throw it in the garbage, for say half a million?"

Nice idea, except for those two problems.

[Stephen]

Well, my understanding is that the bill refers to organizations charged, not convicted. And my idea was about scoring political points. The last thing I want is another cabinet-level bureaucracy.

[oddjob]

OT:

Senator More Stupid Than A Bag Of Rocks (R-OK) is at it again.....

[Eric Wilde]

wrt Inhofe:

Seems like a predictable move to me. No respect for the Constitution. I wonder if he's ever read it.

[ari]

No respect for the Constitution.

Good for him (the only time I'll ever cheer him on, I assure you). It's the world's most overrated document.

[Eric Wilde]

Good for him (the only time I'll ever cheer him on, I assure you). It's the world's most overrated document.

I agree that we need another Constitutional Convention. What are the chances if we wrote one today that it would be any better, though?

Nevertheless, I don't want to hear bullshit patriotism from these clowns while they also pull this kind of stunt.

[oddjob]

I don't want to hear bullshit patriotism from these clowns while they also pull this kind of stunt.

Word! That isn't patriotism anyway, it's just nationalism wearing a more respectable mask.

[ari]

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that if we rewrote the Constitution today we'd do a far better job of calibrating the document to handle today's circumstances than the Framers did. And certainly if you'd be willing to promise me that we could have another bite at the apple every two or three decades, I'd be happy to take the risk that we'd make a hash of it the first go-round.

[litbrit]

Amanda (Pandagon and Double X) believes it may well be a hate-crime murder:

There's reason to believe that this was a hate crime inspired by the lurid right-wing conspiracy theories that have reproduced like gremlins ever since Obama took office, reasons beyond just the fact that the word "Fed" was written on Sparkman's chest. Right wing media has been working really hard to associate the Census with the unfairly maligned ACORN, and also to argue that ACORN is a brownshirt organization. It's not hard to see what all this insinuating is supposed to lead the right-wing audience to conclude: Obama is the new black Hitler, and he and his brownshirt organization intend to round up either all white people or maybe just Republican voters and put them in concentration camps. And that they're using the Census to gather the necessary info.

Hey, I know it sounds crazy. In fact, the sheer craziness of it makes it hard to report on it, for fear that readers will transfer their annoyance at the crazy onto you. Can I really believe that people really believe this, just because they blog it, email it, and reference it on talk radio?

Sadly, yes. This theory has enough traction that Rep. Michele Bachmann decided to acknowledge it on Fox News, with the standard-issue right-wing plausible deniability necessary to keep getting invited back on TV. But she didn't conceal that she's a believer, and insisted that it was dangerous and ill-advised to fill out your Census forms. This wasn't the first time Bachmann alluded to fears of concentration camps for conservatives under Obama, either.

[big bad wolf]

i think, ari, that the framers did a pretty decent job, particularly with individual rights and with significant and supple guarantees, such as due process and freedom of speech. and i would certainly hope that, with the knowledge gained in passing years we could make some improvements. in that light, i am not quite sure what you are saying: that we might be more progressive than madison or the framers of the 14th amendment? why i bet we'd be more enlightened than lincoln too. i think the challenge at our constitutional convention is: would we be as visionary, as lasting, and as useful.

reminder: amanda convicted the duke students early. she might, therefore, be not quite the right person to follow in the convict before trial game. if we worry (rightly) about acorn and bills of attainder, we can afford some skepticism to things we know much less about

[ari]

I've no problems with the Bill of Rights, bbw. And sure, it's an awesome * Constitution -- so long as you're a wealthy white man. As for the Reconstruction Amendments, which are pretty great, they weren't the work of the Framers (note the capital "F".)

* Supple? Ick.

[ari]

And actually, given that the country is still just a baby, I'm not sure I'm even willing to spot you "supple". Shoot, we had a Civil War that killed more than 600,000 people because of flaws in the Constitution. And we seem to be pretty much hamstrung again because of the document's limitations. That's twice* in a bit more than 200 years. Nice job, Framers!

* If you want, I can come up with a longer list. But I think my point is clear.

[big bad wolf]

i'm not sure it is ari. we had a civil war becuase of one main (and hideous) flaw. much of the document works very well. and i stand by supple: due process, freedom of speech, cruel and unusal punishment, those are terms used by people looking to a world they know they might would never understand. surely you don't want a rigid constitution, framed by us or others? unless you think, and i strongly suspect you don't, that we know best. you well know that criticizing backwards, however accurately, is the easy part; the hard part is how we would frame ours to work well for many years (and, given how few constitutions are anywhere near as old as ours, i think the that "still just a baby" an unhelpful concept. we are hamstrung, i think, in large part because no one foresaw, would we?, how the senate would work with large, empty states in the west (and by a judiciary that fears and abhors the document's suppleness). even then, the original design might have worked better had those states been formed, as powell suggested in the 1870s, on watersheds rather than geometrics.

could it be better, of course. could we do better, of course, but let's not be quite so sure of ourselves. we know through trial and error and through the fortunate leisure that history provides. how that works going forward, i, at least, don't know.

[big bad wolf]

ari, do expand. i am not sure that i think your point is clear, but i really do want to hear your ideas. in particular, i'd like to hear how we should deal with legislative and executive power. those my age grew up hating executive power---vietnam and watergate; thank god for the ervin and church committees. now, we hate the way the senate ties things up---let's free up the world for obama's initiatives. how does one write a constitution for such a world. and in the face of such switches and challenges, why should we we not avoid sweeping, easy denunciations, (slavery aside, that's easy and undeniably correct, getting as much outside of time as we ever can) of those who tried before us, and failed, in part?

[big bad wolf]

and ari, the reconstruction amendments, wonderfully well-intentioned, gave us the slaughterhouse cases and corporate persons. and plessy v. ferguson. we must spell ours out more clearly. or, we could just blame those cases (mostly rightly) on the judiciary. so, that must mean we should restrict the judicial branch in our new constitution, right? but that means giving up the next mccullough v. maryland and brown v. board of education, doesn't it? this consitution thing is hard.

[Stephen]

We had a civil war because some people decided to murder their fellow citizens in order to preserve their despicable practice of treating other human beings worse than cattle. They were vicious, violent brutes who could make Narcissus blush. Much like their political - and let's face it, usually their literal - descendents. No document, no law or anything else would have been able to avert their violent outburst.

[kathy a.]

i'm with BBW on the constitution, and particularly the amendments intended to ensure fairness and personal liberties, being supple, meant to conform to future circumstances yet not envisioned. the bill of rights was not intended to protect only wealthy white men; they didn't need those protections.

i'm actually pretty astonished to hear that someone here thinks we need a constitutional convention, and now. look at the news, ari.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Perspective, please, people, perspective.

Could we write a better Constitution if we had a time machine to go back and use our experience? Sure. (For that matter, give us the same time machine and we could talk Will Shakespeare into a few changes that would improve his plays. And as for the Gospels...)

But the 55 men were 'working blind,' and were handicapped by their experience with the Srticles of Confederation. (The 13 nations that existed after the Revolution had been very jealous of their sovereignity, and no one knew how freely they would surrender it. Thus the weight to State Legislatures, the initial idea of Senators as 'Ambassadors from their States' to the central government.)

But the most important thing was that they might haver had Adams' collectilon of Constitutions, but nothing really prepared them for the innovations they had to make -- even just because of the sheer size of the country even then.

They had no idea whatsoever how any of these innovations would work out in practice, and they got some of them wrong. (Think about how the President was supposed to be selected. No election, no competition, merely the legislatures picking out the 'best and wisest' to select two candidates -- making sure they had to pick one from out of state -- and the one with the most vote got to be that strangely named Head of State, the "President." And the second was to become his 'emergency successor.' That one didn't last long now, did it.)

And, of course, they had no hint of the technological changes that would be coming so fast, that would change the very nature of the country almost at once -- with the railroad and steamboat -- and which would include telephones, automobiles, airplanes, radio and television, these funny boxes we type words into that can be seen around the world at once. Or even the changes that would change the country from an agricultural one to a manufacturing one, to one that -- now -- lives mostly on information, personal services, and office work, none of which would have been imaginable to them. Or the legal change that made a barely nascent entrepreneur capitalism into a corporate capitalism unimaginable then or even as late as Marx.

But that is the point. They produced a document that was both rigid enough to survive for 220 years and flexible enough to change with the incredible changes those 220 years have brought about.

And the idea of a country being ruled by a 'Constitution' written down, a country where judges could use that even against the Head of State -- which was the key to Marbury, that Marshall could use the Constitution to thwart Jefferson -- was unheard of then. A world that was filled with monarchs, frequently monarchs held in power by the local religion (like Russia and Turkey even a hundred years later), with only despots as the competition, was so affected by our example that the almost universal cry from every revolutionary throughout the nineteenth century was "Give us a Constitution!"

And even a Stalinist Russia, a Weimar Germany, had Constitutions. Many times ignored, but the formal structure was there.

As recently as 70 years ago the 'informed opinion' was that Democracy had failed, that all that was left was to choose between Communism and Fascism.

Look around you. However they are governed in actuality, almost every country has a constitution, and -- except for those that chose the Parliamentary model -- a governmental structure at least formally based on ours. They have a legislature, a judiciary, nominally separate. (And frequently actually so. Perhaps the only thing that has kept Israel from going off into the horrors of Likudism completely has been the independent judiciary there.)

Did they build perfectly, are there still things that we could remove. Oh, yes. But they did a pretty damn good job, and I doubt if, starting from scratch, we could do a tenth as well.

[Sir Charles]

I'm going to join the lawyer cabal and give two and a half cheers for the Constituion. I agree with pretty much everything voiced by bbw and kathy -- I'd love to get rid of that Senate though.

And I also agree with Prup -- given how much they had to work with the FFs did pretty well.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I should have included a disclaimer or explanation. I have never had the slightest problem calling myself a patriot -- of the 'if wrong, make it right' type. I love this country, what she has done well, what she has spurred other countries to do, the ideas behind her, etc. And don't quote me her faults, by the way, I accept them, and celebrate that she gives me ways to work to change them.

And that last, meaning the Constitution, the Democracy that, however imperfectly, does work and has worked ever so slowly better over time, is what I love about it.

I've said elsewhere, if not here, that I have had one thing that approached what others call a 'religious' experience. And that was when i sat in the rear of Constitution Hall -- which hadn't been turned into an 'exhibit' yet -- and simply looked at the scene I knew about from my reading, and physically saw where it had happened -- and even saw the chair with Franklin's 'Rising Sun.'

[oddjob]

except for those that chose the Parliamentary model

The greater proportion of the world's countries, I believe.

[oddjob]

doubt if, starting from scratch, we could do a tenth as well.

Agreed. Didn't Churchill say that democracy was the worst form of government there was, except for all the others?

I like the idea in the parliamentary model that a government can come to an end if a no confidence motion passes in the legislature. I wish there was a way we could incorporate that.

[Stephen]

I agree with Ari that the constitution is overrated. Not that it's a poor constitution, I also agree that they did pretty well for men of their age. Rather, people have come to view it the way they do the Bible - with a fundamentalist veneration that ossifies not the words themselves but certain interpretations of those words.

I'd like to think that we could do better given all that we've learned the last few centuries, but the current dynamic of conservatives is a problem the framers simply didn't have - their conservatives were those loyal to England, and they had just been defeated in a war and weren't invited to Philadelphia.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oddjob:
No, you don't, because a system like that puts a premium on party loyalty -- a maverick is rarely renominated by his party for the seat. In fact, the stupider the csndidate the better, as long as he/she votes with the Party. In fact, one reason why the Republican Party has become the 'repository of the stupid' was because Newtie tried to institute a Parliamentary-style discipline. Which means that a Bachman, a King, or a Westmoreland -- or a Craig, a Foley, or a Mark Sanford -- are ideal party Reps because they 'vote the right way.'

A Wyden, a Nadler, a Wellstone or a Feingold aren't, because they 'stray off the reservation' too easily.

It works -- to some extent -- because of the tradition of the 'loyal opposition.' And because they have a basically three party system, with the third party being the mavericks that can bring a government down.

Remember, afaik, no Parliamentary system includes any sort of primary to select the local Representative -- that's done by the local District Selection Board of the party with influence -- usually invisible -- from the top. And you don't 'vote for the man, you vote for the Party' which makes Ben Nelson your ideal type.

And you don't vote for the Head of State. That's the Parliamentary leader of the majority party, and if she fails, then another member tries to form a government, and if they can't get the votes, the other party has its shot. (Okay, ideal description, there are softening aspects.)

That's if you keep to the English model with strong parties. The other alternatative is a system with a dozen parties and a constantly changing series of 'coalition governments.' Which leads towards Italy in the fifties, where there was new government every few months, or it leads to an Israeli-type system, which gives the 'religious parties' or other special interest groups a balance of power. (Most Israelis are secular or only mildly religious -- there are more yarmulkes in Brooklyn than in all of Israel -- though they do like mezuzehs there. But education and other aspects are controlled by the Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox to keep them in the coalition.)

Right now we have a good chance of passing an end to DOMA and DADT and of passing ENDA -- but imagine if the Democrats knew any of them could be turned into a 'vote of no confidence,' which means that if they failed, the Government would fall. Would anyone even dare to bring them to the floor?

Every so often frustrated liberals push this idea -- there was a lot of it in the sixties with James MacGregor Burns' DEADLOCK OF DEMOCRACY as a prime example. Fortunately it rarely gets out of academia.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Stephen: Not exactly. Our Revolution was not that ideological. Patrick Henry would fit right in with today's Christianist Republicans, for example, and Washington and Adams were not 'fighting liberals' -- well, maybe Sam Adams was, not John. In fact, one (minor) cause of the Revolution was the fact that the Crown had decided to be tolerant of their new Canadian Catholics -- at a time when few colonies allowed Catholics even to practise openly.

And one point on my last post. What you also get in Parliamentary Democracies -- especially ones like England's -- is that power flows to the 'unelected bureaucrats' of the civil service, who know they'll be around long after the current Minister has moved on or been thrown out. (Yes, Minister may have been comedy, but it was based on fact.)

There are some features of parliamentary government that might be nice to have, but the idea of governments falling on votes of 'no confidence' -- or the right of the government in power to choose when to hold the next election -- are not among them.

[oddjob]

Prup, I duly note your reservations and you have worthy points to consider.

you don't 'vote for the man, you vote for the Party'

I've discussed this before with a Canadian acquaintance I used to know when I was in grad. school. Her description of the Canadian system indicates to me that this comment is (at least sometimes) not the reality. I remember remarking that it must put you in a difficult position when your local MP is someone you really like when you also know that voting for the MP means voting for a prime minister who you loathe. She acknowledged that was possible, and that it did make such a vote difficult.

[ari]

Sorry, I had to do some other things. The ratification of the Constitution represented the moment that the nation legitimated its unholy relationship with slavery (which isn't once mentioned in the document, an embarrassed silence for which the zombie Founders should still be mocked). The 3/5ths Compromise led directly to the Civil War. It just isn't possible to argue otherwise. And the Senate is an almost hilariously anti-democratic institution, particularly as it was originally conceived and executed. Oh, and then there's the Electoral College: don't even get me started.

That said, my claim was and is that it's the world's most overrated document. Which is to say, sure, it has some good parts. But overall, Constitutional fetishism has been one of the nation's great problems.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ari: Slavery is the ultimate human evil, yes, and the fact that it besmirched the European world -- and not just us -- is a horror and sadness that I can not conceive of a mitigation of.

Unfortunately, it existed, and no negotiation would have eliminated it from where it was. Which meant 'no slavery compromise, no nation.' And if you think the North could have 'gone it alone' you again need history.

Not only was almost all the major political talent -- and wisdom -- in the slave holding regions -- imagine a 'new republic' led by that pompous, semi-monarchical Adams, or Hamilton, or Jay, or worse, Aaron Burr, with no Madison or Jefferson or Washington to add their stability. (Franklin was alive, but too old.)

But the glory of our republic is at least partially its secularism -- and that came from Virginia. It was New England and New York State that were the revival belt then, and it was the early Federalists of the North that were destroyed by their own Christianists. (In fact, the "Illuminati" myth that still is a staple of right-wing paranoia was introduced into America by anti-Jeffersonian pastors. It had even been thoroughly debunked before he ran in 1800.)

No, sadly, without that 'compromise with evil' you would have had either no country or two, each sovereign, each with unsettled borders and open areas to compete for, compete militarily for, with England -- still not resigned to her loss -- meddling and interfering and offering a home to the disaaffected sovereign states to join Canada.

And as for your other points, again, the 55 men didn't know how much sovereignity the individual nation-states would insist on retaining. The Senate gave them a way to do just that, with Senators being 'Ambassadors' from the states, and Congressmen being representatives of the people. (And, btw, if you look at the great or admirable or both members of Congress, I think you'll find ten senators for every representative. The House very rapidly became the home of the mediocre and the eccentric.)

[big bad wolf]

ari, i think i don't disagree with you in large part, though i think the rhetoric a bit loud. it's not exactly a revelation from the high places of contemplation that the constitution had flaws. it is true that your initial comment was a one-liner about the world's most overrated document---pithy, i'd say, but hyperbolic. i do not think that it is saying much to say we would avoid the slavery flaw---good god, i hope we've learned that much. similarly, it is no revelation that the slavery compromise led to the civil war. the war sprung from and forced an address of those matters and led to the reconstruction amendments. yet, without the constitution and without the union are they addressed? are you suggesting that no u.s and no bill of rights would inevitably have led to a quicker and better resolution of slavery and its attendant political and economic consequences on the north american continent? perhaps there is an argument for that outcome, but it is not self-evident from quips about overrated documents and wealthy white guys.

specifically, i think my problem with your comments is that to say there is a reasonable case that we might calibrate it better now for our current problems is a both rather a mild claim for the present and a bit unfair to the past---you are being superior in anachronistic ways to men dead 200 years. what specific changes would you make in the present (beyond the senate, which was mentioned in your absence, and the electoral college, which people are attempting to change). and how specific would be the language you would choose for the new constitution? we know you find suppleness icky and we know you gave yourself the out of amending it every 20 or 30 years, but what formulations would you propose if you couldn't count on the chance to rescript within your lifetime? how minute would your prescriptions be? and if these are hard questions, should we not perhaps acknowledge that they were hard even in the old days?

more generally, it undoubtedly took far too long for the slavery issue to be addressed and for the post-war amendments to be given effect, but how does that require us to disdain the framers generally? (ues, yes, the rhetoric of national original sin, but again is that not a bit anachronistic?) and why should we not, as you yourself did above in giving assent to the bill of rights, recognize that the document contains much that was and remains useful. i could be wrong, i often am, but i do not think a reification or worship of the constitution has been a significant problem in the last few decades.

[ari]

Prup, I have a reasonably decent sense of how important history is, okay? As for whether the North could have gone it alone, who cares? I'm not talking about whether the United States is some kind of divine experiment, a nation whose existence was and is more important than any other consideration; I'm talking about the flaws inherent in the Constitution. So please, stop shifting the goalposts.

And while you're at it, you might want to let go of your sense of American exceptionalism. Phrases like "the glory of our Republic" are a giveaway that you're viewing the past through tinted glasses. The republic has been glorious if you're a wealthy white man. For others? Not so much.

The rest of your comment also strikes me as oddly divorced from the history of the Revolutionary and Early National Eras. Actually, worse that than, what you wrote reads the past backward. Did the South have political talent? Sure. But so did the North: Franklin, Adams, etc. Over time, though, because of the 3/5ths compromise and the existence of the Electoral College, the South's talent had more opportunity to ascend to the national stage. The playing field favored the South -- because of the compromises over slavery hardwired into the Constitution.

Then there's the question of unsettled borders. Again, for someone who wants me to better acquaint myself with history, you seem oddly unaware of our nation's past: the War of 1812, Indian Removal, the Texas question, the US-Mexican War. The nation's borders weren't settled for years and years after the ratification of the Constitution.

As for this

And, btw, if you look at the great or admirable or both members of Congress, I think you'll find ten senators for every representative. The House very rapidly became the home of the mediocre and the eccentric.

you're both reading the past backward -- again -- and also ignoring the structural realities of our public sphere and the Congress.

bbw, seriously, I think the Constitution is the world's most overrated document. I explained why I think that. You didn't like my explanation. That's totally fine. But your hand-waving away the issue of slavery, or the ongoing fetishism of the Framers and the flawed compact they wrought, well, that's no kind of argument at all. As to your ongoing effort to shift the goalposts -- by asking, "Can we do better now?" -- I'm not sure why you think it's incumbent on me to address that. This nation now is the nation it is in some significant part because of the the Constitution, both its flaws and its strengths. Given that we're a nation with a past, and that past emerged in some significant measure from the Constitution, talking about starting fresh seems like an odd game to me.

Again, I'm not saying that the Constitution is entirely flawed; I'm saying it's wildly overrated.

[ari]

Also, sorry if I sound testy above. It's just tedious to write something that, sure, is a bit controversial, but in no way attacks anyone here, and then to be told in reply that I'm insufficiently grounded in the historiography. It's equally tedious to be told that I'm shrill (or "loud") when nothing I've written strikes me as shouty at all. Yes, I've tried to lead a sacred cow to the slaughter house. But so what? The Constitution is absurdly overrated. That nobody here seems willing or able to articulate an argument that counters such a thesis -- other than pointing to the document's endurance (again, two centuries, interrupted by a Civil War caused by the Constitution, doesn't really impress me) and the fact that the Framers did well for their era (except that they legitimated slavery, spat on the idea of democracy, lit a long fuse that exploded in 1861, sowed the seeds of Indian removal, etc) strikes me as quite telling. And that people want to have other arguments instead of the one we started with is even more of a red flag.

[ari]

Finally, I accept responsibility for having answered Eric the first time he asked about rewriting the Constitution today. I answered because he struck me as a fellow traveler. Which is to say, he was offering a friendly and interesting amendment, rather than shifting the goalposts to an entirely different field. I probably should have said then what I'll say now: I have no idea how we'd do if we tried to rewrite the Constitution today. And I don't really care. I'm not talking about rewriting it now. I'm talking about how overrated it is now and how flawed it always has been.

[Sir Charles]

Hey tenured radical!

Why do you hate America?

Interestingly, despite his rank elitism, I find myself much more of a Hamilton man than a Jefferson man. Putting aside Jefferson's rank hypocrisy, the Hamiltonian vision of a strong centralized government with an industrialized economy is to me much more compelling than the notion of a nation of yeoman farmers (and their indentured help). (Hamilton was every bit the visionary that Jefferson was -- and much more prescient with respect to the shape of the world to come.)

I do think the Constitution has withstood the test of time reasonably well and has shown itself to be flexible enough (either through amendment or judicial interpretation) to endure the transition from small agrarian coastal nation to a continental nation of 300 million. (Well there was that pesky little Civil War thing, but hey.)

Would I prefer a social democratic parliamentary system? Yes -- but I'd rather work with what we have that open up a Constitutional Convention.

[Sir Charles]

ari,

I think your argument is, as always, compelling and interesting. And I don't think anyone here was attacking you (even if you are a traitor).

I think that the Constituion probably needs to be demystified and treated as what it is -- a political document that was the product of profound compromise among men who were highly intelligent, but mere men nonetheless.

[ari]

Charles, you're trying to goad me into writing a book about how much the Constitution sucks, aren't you? Well, I'm not going to do it. I have no real interest in meeting Glenn Beck in person, thanks. But really, now you're waving away the Civil War. How can you responsibly do that, especially because it was a direct outgrowth in flaws in the Contitution? And even if you do that, how can you then ignore the absurdity of the Senate and Electoral College, particularly the disproportionate power those institutions have given first to the South and now to the West?

[ari]

Also, you're the most overrated blogger on the Internet. And unions suck. So there.

[Sir Charles]

ari,

To give you an idea of what a cutting edge motherfucker I am, I wrote my college admission essay in 1978 on the need to abolish the electoral college. Seriously.

I am not quite sure what approach could have been taken to the issue of slavery in 1789 -- the alternative would have been the break up of the young nation I suppose. (Not that that seems so terrible right now -- hell, I'm beginning to think Buchanan was our greatest president. He would have just let the Confederacy secede.)

I'm going to a union dinner dance tonight at which I will be rounding up a posse to come deal with you and your cabal. (And yeah, as a Brandeis grad, I know what a cabal is -- it's like a minion with money.) It's open bar, so beware.

[big bad wolf]

ari, you didn't explain. that's the basic problem some of us had. you gave a quick declaration, and, for the most part, now return to quips and rhetoric, as you do again in saying i wave away slavery and make a fetish of the constitution. i think that an untenable reading of what i wrote. if all you have to say is that the slavery compromise was bad and led to the civil war, then so be it, but that's not saying much anyone doesn't know. i think therefore that this is less sacred cow killing than fairly old news to those of us out here in the everyday legal world. the question here is what we do with the history we have and the situations we encounter day to day in real time, not on years of reflection. what you do is very valuable and informs our actions over time, but do not dismiss all of us out here as children misled by a myth that brave bovine slaughtering professors see through.

i did not move the goalposts. you said there was a reasonable case that we could calibrate a constitution better for our times. a reasonable case is, of course, not much of a statement, in a world of no hard truths and consensus by persuasion. i asked in large part because you have done professional study and work and undoubtedly know more detail than any of us, to expand on your assertion that we could calibrate better now. if you do not wish to do so, for time reasons or for other reasons, that's fine, but don't say i moved the goalposts. you invited the discussion; you are free to decline it. that's perfectly okay.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And withouit the slavery compromise, you've got a nation entirely devoted to slavery, a northern, fragmented, constantly warring group of independent states fighting over borders, over newly discovered land -- and without the formation of American, there wouldn't have been a Louisiana Purchase or a Northwest Ordinance, so the expsnsion would have been entirely military.

(In fact, the Maine War alone would have been spectacular. Maine was originally a part of Massachusetts, despite the lack of contiguity. Because of the US, Maine's Independence was won totyally peacefully in 1829, with two new Senators appointed for Maine -- Webster had been a Massachusetts Senator before that -- and the seven congressional districts simply given to the new state.

But would the Nation of Massachusetts have surrendered territory almost half the total area it governed so peacefully?

(Actually, Sir Charles, what you really dream of, I'm sure, is the recession of the North to Canada, so you could be truly Her Majesty's Barrister Sir Charles of the Province of Boston. Surely you would have been knighted for your work on the most recent revisions of the Trade Treaty with the Southern Confederacy further removing the restrictions on Her Majesty's citizens of color when they entered the Confederacy's Territory, as well as removing the final vestiges of the fugitive slave law. (True, slavery had ceased being a functional system as of the 1920s and merely has remained nominal. Of course each person of color must choose an 'owner' but after the brilliant diplomatic work of Governor Roosevelt of the independent city state of New York and Jersey, sales of slaves were no longer permitted without the permission of the slave himself -- only done in financial emergencies -- and owners had few rights over their 'property' in most cases.)

I assume you and Senora A. of Her Catholic Majesty's American possessions are already working on your own trade negotiations at present.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

After that particular piece of whimsy -- which actually might work as a framework for an 'alternate world' SF series -- I think we are all in agreement that Prup should turn the browser off ansd see you all in the morning.

Night all!

[Sir Charles]

Prup,

I am pretty sure that if Canada and Mexico switched geographic spaces, I might long ago have ended up a barrister of her majesty's realm. But Boston was too cold for me -- Canada unthinkable.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir Charles: The 'reunited Canada' in my scenario would have a border much to the South of the current one. Even if the 'Independent City State of New York' included much of the Philadelphia area, since there would have been no United States to counteract ita expansion, certainly Canada would have included much of the 'West' from Ohio on. Except for the city state, the only limits to their expansion would have been the Southern Confederacy and the New Spain that would have included the Southwest up through most of California. Somewhere, Your Lordship, there would have been a climate suitable for you.

(Btw, I hope I'm not the only one having fun with this 'alternate world' scenario. It strikes me we could build this into a pleasant hobby to calm our nerves after they were rattled by the laterst Republican idiocy. If anyone is interested, I'll sketch a scenario as a starting point.)

[ari]

bbw, that you're familiar with the arguments I offered doesn't mean I didn't offer arguments. And I'm sorry that you're so put off by "rhetoric". That must be complicated in what I presume is your line of work, sort of like if I found "revisionism" distasteful. All of that said, I think it's stunning that people are willing to minimize a war in which 600,000 people died in the mid nineteenth century, I think it's stunning that people are willing to minimize the pernicious over-representation of Southern and Western interests in our national politics, and I think it's stunning that people are willing to minimize the legacy of the legitimation of slavery. All of these things are direct by-products of the massively wealthy, entirely white, incredibly over-educated (by the standards of the day) Framers' decision to elevate the interests of slaveholding elites over the vast majority of people living in the United States at the time (note that I don't say "citizens"; there's a reason for that).

Again, you purport to know these arguments, and then you dismiss them because the Constitution is so resilient and the Framers were such visionaries. I say, again, that's fine. But it's also further evidence for my argument. If that's rhetoric, so be it.

[ari]

As for you, Prup, without the 3/5ths Compromise we don't know what would have happened. Which is to say, I like counterfactuals just fine, but presuming the most dire of historical outcomes in order to support your contention that the Constitution isn't overrated strikes me as an especially self-serving form of teleology.

Put another way, the existence of the United States wasn't such a great thing for millions upon millions of people in nineteenth century. In fact, the subjugation of those millions and millions of people (I sound like Carl Sagan now -- neat), was far more instrumental in the nation's success than the Constitution. So maybe it would have been just fine if there never had been a United States.

Argument number two: we're the most overrated nation on earth.

[Sir Charles]

ari,

You are in feisty mode these days. My question is -- and I'm not at all being insincere -- is what alternative existed to the compromise over the Senate? Was there a plausible approach that would have created a more democratic structure and allowed for the unification of the nascent country (however flawed)?

It's worth pointing out as well that much of our current hatred of the Senate is centered on the abuse of the filibuster, an extra-Constitutional tactic that cannot be blamed on the founding fathers. Would we have the same sense of antipathy toward the disproportionate voice of the hinterlands if right wingers had not made filibuster abuse such a common act?

[big bad wolf]

ari, the question SC just asked is similar to one of the ones i asked above, to which you made no response but to be dismissive. i'd be interested in your counterfactual answer. one reason, i've been a bit hard here is i am disappointed that you did not, though you now have, expand. you obviously know this stuff, but treating us like 18-year olds that you are shocking in their first semester is annoying.

you complain above (yesterday 5:47) that no one refuted your "thesis." your only thesis initially was that the constitution was the world's most overrated document (9/23 at 11:51). and you offered it as an opinion, not with any support. presumably, by use of that superlative you meant to compare it to every document ever written in the world, but you took no time to say why such a superlative was justified.

given that, you cannot complain that no one "refuted" your thesis. there was nothing to refute in that sentence; it was entirely conclusory. thus, what people did in response was to raise questions about what alternatives there might have been and what good things we could find, then and now, in the constitution, and what we might change now. your replies were initially sarcastic "awesome" "wealthy white guys," then repetitive---no one was disputing the problems the 3/5 compromise created. in that sense, once you converted your thesis, as you did in your later comments, into the constitution was flawed because it contained decisions that led to politicial and civil strife and suffering, of course, no one "refuted it----all who had commented granted that. thus to claim a lack of refutation was less a "red flag," then a red herring. what people wanted to have was a discussion about how we weigh the document as a whole and whether, all things weighed, the initial thesis that it was the "most overrated" document in history was a sustainable one.

the past is the past. we can't fix it. we can and should know about it and we should try to learn from it. but it is past. i do not dismiss the past; i seek the usable parts of it, including in the constitution, a place i think there are many usable parts. i think we need to know what the horrors were. i do not think, however, that having recognized the horrors we can simply stop and dwell on them. we have to go on, with knowledge of them and with the hope that we are not mistaking mistakes that in 200 years will lead us to be judged as harshly.

you in your latest comment again insist, incorrectly, that i am dismissive of your arguments---though i have largely indicated my agreement with many of the factual portions, if not with the rhetorical ones or the initial "thesis." yet, again you insist that i see the framers as visionaries, a claim i have never made. what i have suggested here is that they made some good decisions in among the bad ones, and that, given that we cannot change the past, we might be wise not to throw out or brand as inherently tainted the good ones. for this reason, i think you are wrong to conflate the idea of a resilient constitution--which indeed it may be given the amendments we have made and the judicial role in interpreting it to address issues unthought of in 1787---with the view of the framers as visionaries. by conflating them, you weaken your own case, for one could easily read that conflation to mean that any effort to make the constitution work or to improve it is deluded. the only thing to do, one reading that might think, is condemn the past and accept the tainted present. i know you don't mean that, but when you resort to such formulations, you can be read that way.

as to rhetoric, it certainly has its place; its place is in aid of argument, not in substitution for it. lofty pitches and spat-out denunciations rarely change minds. rhetoric works best when it allows the reader or hearer to make the connection, not when the connection is spelled out and insisted upon. that, i find, convinces only the convinced.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ari: I repeat, you are totally lacking in historical perspective. You have plenty of historical knowledge, but your comments continue to show you looking at that knowledge through 21st Century eyes. In fact, in at least one case, I'm even going to question your knowledge, and that is with the '3/5 clause' which you do not realize was a compromise that favored the North.

The slaveholders wanted slaves to be counted the way women were counted then and the way children are still counted, as residents for the purpose of apportionment. The North, riightly, considered this unfair, and didn't want slaves counted at all -- at least the few anti-slavery northerners did, remember slavery still existed -- in very small numbers -- as North as New York State, and New Englanders and New Yorkers were the main people involved in slave importation.

The 3/5 of a person rule -- which only referred to enummerations for the basis of apportionment -- was a compromise, but one which favored the North, not the slaveholders.

Your other arguments, including your 'it would have been just fine if there never had been a United States' again ignores the fact that this was a new and "Great" Experiment that was unheard of, carried out at a time when people believed -- with some justification -- that the results of the revolution was not final, at a time when nothing resembling what was being suggested existed anywhere -- okay, there were some similarites in England, but they were still both aristocratic and a monarchy.

they were groping in the dark, and through wisdom and accoident they created a damn fine system that has, in fact, become the basic model for governance throughout the world.

But if it had failed, the existing 13 Nations would have still been around. They would have created some other types of government and forms of governance.

I've argued that the South would have formed its own confederation, while the far more diverse North would have remained separate countries, countries that would have had no central 'restraining hand' keeping them from frequent wars over boundaries, over expansion, etc.

That's areguable, but that a "New Nation" could have been founded on an anti-slavery foundation seems impossible -- at a time, remember, when no nation had abolished slavery or even the importation of slaves.

This would have been far ahead of it's time, a truly 'religious' miracle -- as much so as if the Constitution had discussed railroads and telegraph rights of way. Even the early Republican Party was not abolitionist. They merely sought to restrict slavery to where it currently existed -- and most, including Lincoln, insisted that abolition could only occur if slavehoilders were compensated and slaves were immediately re-colonized to Africa.

And that was after 70 years of Abolitionist arguments, after Wilberforce, after the attempt by Britain to end the slave trade. Even then, Lincoln got a lot of votes from Northern states which prohibited the settlement of 'free blacks' and the NY Draft Riots of 1863 came, in large parts because Irish immigrants didn't want to be forced to fight for blacks.

As for the Senate, I'll be defending that later.

[ari]

I apologize if you thought I was treating you like an 18 yo, bbw. That wasn't my intent* at all at any point. It's just that I was and remain somewhat bemused by the reaction to my original contention. That said, whatever. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

Prup, you're a different kettle 'o fish entirely. I was all ready to apologize to you as well, but I then I realized that in addition to having no idea what you're talking about, you continue to spew nonsense and near-nonsense while insisting that I need more perspective.

Your comment starts with a very common neo-Confederate myth: "The 3/5 of a person rule -- which only referred to enummerations for the basis of apportionment -- was a compromise, but one which favored the North, not the slaveholders." Um, yeah, okay. Ron Paul '12!

From there, you have: "a new and 'Great' Experiment that was unheard of"; "the basic model for governance throughout the world"; a lecture for me about the roots of the Republican Party; and finally, a defense of democratic racism as a byproduct of its age. All of this ranges from the purest form of American exceptionalism to tired cliché. Had I not long since realized that I don't have time for this kind of debate in this kind of forum, it would all be rather maddening. As it is, though, I have work to do and kids to raise. So please do forgive me as I take my leave.

* My original comment was little more than a throwaway line, the kind of thing that is, as you've noted, predicated on revealed wisdom. Beyond that, as people around here will tell you, if I have something serious to say, I usually spell it out. I'm not shy about spilling pixels in service of an argument. In this case, though, I found myself stunned at the response to my comment, a response that seemed to me to confirm my original argument. And so I tried reiterating my contention, but that only deepened the problem. With that said, at some point it might be fun to have a real discussion about the issues we've raised here. Actually, I suspect I'd enjoy that a great deal. I hope to have the chance to do just that -- over a beer and in person. In the meantime, I really am sorry.

[ari]

Y'know what, Prup? I should have just left it alone. We completely disagree on some issues that are fundamental in my work life. But who cares, right? It's just the Internet. I should have stuck with my original impulse, which was to apologize for offending you. My mistake. Sorry about that.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oh no you don't. You are not going to make a personal attack on me as you walk out the door. Admittedly, it is one of the more absurd ones I've ever been subjected to, calling me, by implication, both a 'neo-Confederate' and a Ton Paul supporter -- both of which go against everything I have written here or elsewhere and are only less wounding because no one who has read anything I've written would believe them, for a second. (But they still do hurt. On the other hand 'accusing' me of American exceptionalism seems a little silly when I have proudly proclaimed just that belief -- and explained why I hold it.)

I am afraid this seems to be typical of your style of arguing. As far as I can see, you never respond to challenges with fact, just, as bbw says, with rhetoric and attacks. Okay, let's just take the topic that caused your attack, the '3/5 Compromise.'

I have made the following statements:
The 3/5 rule applied -- in the Constitution (it was used differently in the Articles of Confederation -- where it was to the benefit of the slaveholders) ONLY to apportionment.

It was a compromise between slaveholders who wished to have slaves count as people for the purposes of this apportionment, and the North, who argued that this was unfair. (It was, btw, proposed by James Wilson and Ropger Sherman, two northerners who were far from sympathetic to slavery.)

I have stated that such a compromise was necessary -- along with other compromises -- to ensure ratification.

If this is a myth, where is the 'mythical element?' Is there another section in the Constitution where the 3/5 number is used? (Hint: the answer is 'no.') Did it have any other effect than on apportionment. Okay, yes, because the electoral college was based on apportionment as well. (At the time, though, there was no expectation of a 'popular vote' for President. Please actually read the Constitution and see the Founders' total bobble. their plan for electing the President. This was one of the first areas where an Amendment was needed.)

Do you have any reference, any historical source dealing with the adoption of the Constitution that presents it in any other way and which has a shred of credibility? I havertead numerous books on the subject and know of none, but if you have one, I'll be glad to look at it.

Well, you claim you are leaving because you 'don't have time for this kind of debate in this kind of forum'. Yet you have yet to do anything but 'debate' rather than providing any evidence for your argument. I have, at least, explained my points -- and when I indulged in some speculation, it was obviously that. (I would have very much enjoyed you providing a different scenario as well for what would have happened if the American Revolution had failed, as it would have had the 13 nations not come together under the Constitution.)

Actually I would have appreciated any contribution other than sneering and personal attack.

[Sir Charles]

Boys play nice -- you're all among my favorites -- there's no need to personalize what is a pretty interesting discussion point.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have not personalized it, nor would I. I have waited for ari to actually defend his points -- and if he could prove me wrong, or even get me to rethink my position and research it more, he'd be doing me a favor and would have received a 'thank you.' Instead, nothing but what we've seen -- and maybe it is my anger that made me see his 'apology' -- which i hadn't seen when i wrote the above -- as a condescending 'non-apology apology' sort of a 'sorry kid, I'm too busy to show how wrong you are, so I'll just apologize for offending you.'

If I am wrong in taking it that way, i'll simply say no apology necessary for your earlier comments, and as for the neo-Confederate, Ron Paul nonsense, maybe I should apologize to you for so disturbing you that you lost the ability to read.

Sorry Sir C. I'm trying to regain control, but I haven't done it yet.

[Sir Charles]

As I hope everyone knows, I am the last guy who would ever advocate for a "safe space" approach to either posts or comments.

I enjoy the contributions that each of you make to the blog here and am just suggesting that in the rush of thrust and parry that is the intertubes that you keep in mind that you are all more or less on the same side and good guys to boot.

Carry on.

[big bad wolf]

ari, as to me i don't think you should be sorry. i'm a massachusetts boy and thus raised in the culture of arguing incessantly. i find this discussion interesting, and, to a large degree, my later comments were aimed at trying to clear out what was not said, so that there could be a more focused discussion, a lawyerly virtue or flaw, but i really am interested and, being both a lawyer and a massachusetts boy, i can be a bit prickly, so i'd call that part even and perhaps there will be beer someday.

[ari]

Prup, did you miss my second comment, the one in which I said that I shouldn't have posted the first? Either way, let me say again that I shouldn't have written what I wrote. And not because you have the first clue what you're talking about -- once again, it's not my job to educate you; you're not one of my students -- but because we're not going to reach common ground. Your assumptions -- that the United States is exceptional, and flowing naturally from that myth, that the Constitution isn't overrated -- make it impossible for me to convince you of anything. More than that, nobody ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet. It just doesn't happen. Instead, as here, people get louder and louder, and feelings get hurt. It's boring.

Finally, read the thread again. See who started with the personal stuff. See where I've raised particular points that you've rebutted by resorting, again and again, to teleology and American exceptionalism. What's left to say? Nothing. Even if we agree on lots of other issues, there's nothing left to say about this one.

[big bad wolf]

one of the nice things about massachusetts political discussions was that responses such as you're a fucking idiot, you're a fucking douchebag, you're a fucking goddamn idiot, and you're a motherfucking goddamn idiot were all recognized (properly :)) as appropriate critiques. this agreed-upon language kept us away from unfair imputations such as fascist or confederate or gestapo and their ilk. just saying.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

This was started immediately after bbw's post at 9:08. I will post it as was written -- yes, I had a 'will not accept' again.

And all I've wanted was a discussion. In fact. let me specifically make my points, and ask if anyone has a convincing argument against them -- then maybe we can get to the Senate.

We all agree that slavery was -- and I would say is -- at or near the top of the list of the worst evils any human society has come up with.

I have little doubt that if each of the participants were to take ten paragraphs to list what they considered were the political perequisites of a 'good society' we'd all be very close and would disagree, perhaps, more on the order of the list than the contents -- as Sir C said 'we're more or less on the same side.'

My points are simple. I believe that, without the Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights and the principal of judicial review, but also including the (to my mind) horrible necessity of the 'slavery compromises' -- the Unoted States could not have come into being.

I believe that without the United States, dedicated -- however imperfectly -- to these same principles we believe in serving as a model, there was no likelihood that any other country would have begun along this path for many years. (Even had England., because of her geo-political importance, her rivals would have fought more strongly against them.)

I believe that the failures and horrors -- exaggerated, but real -- of the French Revolution -- without the counter-balancing success of the American Revolution -- would have made the other revolutionary movements that followed, such as the massive -- if failed -- simultaneous revolutions of 1848 -- either impossible or of a completely different type. That they would not have led to democracy, liberty, equality, and the rule of law.

I believe that it is impossible to imagine a convincing scenario that would have produced a Northern anti-slavery Confederacy, but that there would have been a Southern Confederacy unified in its acceptance of slavery and defensive of it -- as the 'slave power so strongly demonstrated it was.

I believe that many of the American horrors that are pointed to -- most particularly the conquest and horrors perpetrated on the Amerinds -- would have still existed had the union splintered before forming. (People would still have been expansionistic and war-like, and would have fought among each other over the territories to the West -- and would have conquered some that were, in reality, acquired peacefully.

Because of these last two p;oints, I believe that the history and sins of America would have been, if anything, worse -- unless, perhaps, the North had rejoined Britain. I also believe that slavery, under any other scenario, would have lasted far longer and have been ended less efficiently, because it would have been the defining idea of the Southern Confederacy. (As I mentioned in one of my riffs, I believe it would have been kept, in the Southern Confederacy, in some formalistic manner, even though it was no longer the horror it once was.

To simplify my last point, I can see no way that the results of a failed constitution would do anything more than delay the world's progress towards goals we both share.

Now what I would appreciate is someone either arguing my conclusions, or providing a reasonable scenario which would show the world, overall, a better place without the United States having come into existence.

[ari]

bbw, I don't know Prup, okay? I judge him only by what I've read hear. And if one thinks the 3/5ths compromise benefited Northern interests, one is either deeply ignorant, deeply deluded, or a neo-Confederate. Having said that, I'm perfectly happy to agree, again, that I shouldn't have pointed out this fact, because doing so led to more hard feelings.

Beyond that, Prup, let me say again that I'm genuinely sorry I've hurt your feelings. But really, you should read the thread again, ideally from start to finish rather than the reverse of that, and see where you think things went off the rails. I'm not saying you're at fault, by the way. But I am saying that if you believe that the United States is exceptional, and you believe that as deeply as you seem to, a comment like mine about the Constitution is apt to feel very personal.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ari, this apology I'll accept. And my statement about the ompromise was consistent -- that it was better than what the South was demanding which was that slaves should be considered persons for the purpose of apportionment. (Ironically, the North's position was that they were property and should not be considered as persons at all. But that and other compromises were, I insist, necessary to the passage of the Constitution.) This would have so increased the weight of the South in Congress and in the electoral college that they would have been in permanent power.

In that way, no, I am not deluded or ignorant in arguing that the compromise benefitted the North compared to what was being demanded.

[ari]

Okay, I just took my own advice and re-read the thread from start to finish. Two things are now clear to me: first, I massively underestimated the degree to which you, bbw, had already heard and grappled with nearly everything I was saying here. As a result, I now recognize that you didn't much feel like recapitulating your tired responses to my tired arguments (and heaven knows they are tired). I also now see that you were pressing me to have another, much deeper and potentially more fruitful, discussion about some far more serious and open questions. It really is my bad that I blew you off. Sorry about that. Maybe another time, okay?

And second, Prup, as I said above, you and I genuinely disagree about the American experiment. That disagreement is so fundamental that it makes it impossible for us to have anything like a civil exchange, particularly because you rightly see me attacking institutions that you genuinely love. I should have recognized that reality much earlier and acted like a mensch. But I didn't. That's very much my own fault. And I really am sorry about that.

[ari]

Oops, apology overkill. I didn't see your most recent comment, Prup, before I posted mine. If my tally sheet is correct, that now makes me triply sorry.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ari, before this topic drops into the archives, I want to say that I have no doubt we COULD have a discussion on the Constitution. Sure, it would be loud, noisy, frequently explosive, and at least once a week both of us would run screaming that "I'll never talk to that idiot again' but those are alwayd the good ones. (We might even wind up insulting each other a little, but that's okay too. But if you EVER link me with Ron Paul again, my seconds might call on yours to set a dawn appointment.)

The reason why I think it would go well is that I don't think we disagree much on the ends we seek, the society we wish to move towards. Our disagreement is to whether the Constitution and the US is a help or a hindrance to getting there -- and that IS debateable. My love is not a 'blind love' and my 'beliefs' are based on evidence -- I certainly hope -- not 'blind faith.'

[big bad wolf]

a footnote. today i went to the liquor store to replenish the bourbon supply. pretty much, i always buy basil hayden's. i like it and the 80 proof agrees with my age and my age-inappropriate portions. but there, right next to the basis hayden's at this, my not usual liquor store, was a bourbon called jefferson's with a depiction of TJ on the bottle. well, this seemed far too amusing and serendipitous not to buy, especially at a proof fractionally over 82. it's quite nice.

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

I am enjoying a Blanton's Small Batch Bourbon before heading to bed. I've got an arbitration in the morning and need to sleep well.

[big bad wolf]

good luck, SC