I don't see anything in the papers that supports that (in fact it seems to oppose that point of view by saying that a professional army is necessary to fight wars), but maybe Hamilton said that in some other place. But like I said before, the only thing that matters is what the founders said directly explaining what was intended by the constitution. If Hamilton had those views about the military then those are his views, but I don't see them shedding any light on the intention of the constitution which is pretty clear as far as authorizing a standing, peace-time military.

“Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war.”

I agree. It seems clear to me that when the founders gave congress the power to declare war, the intention was that war should not be engaged in, at least at any large scale, until after war is declared. It's not stated that specifically in the constitution, but if that was not the intent that that makes the power to declare war meaningless, just as the broad interpretation of the “general welfare” clause makes the enumerated powers meaningless. So, I agree with you there. But that seems to me to more of an issue of how the branches of government use/abuse their power, rather than a question of the constitutionality of the military itself.

So I'll admit that I overstated the case. However, the army, as it now exists, was never envisioned. Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war.

Perhaps I should have used different phrasing for the comment about pretending she is a famous commentator. That indeed comes off much worse than I intended. Or perhaps not, and I am too mean-spirited at times.

While I do not care for your politics (duh), I do actually like you as a person. You stand up for what you believe in (however wrong! ), stick to your guns, etc. You have been through a lot in your personal life from what you shared, and seem to be still going through some rough times. Yet you carry on. That shows a depth of character.

Anyway, I do feel bad when I get too personal towards you, and will try to keep it to comments (even if strong) about your politics, not your person.

“One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person.”
Ok. Then how do I get to PERSONALLY and equally benefit from that same welfare program? Where's MY check? Where are MY free medicine and drugs? Where are they, Kathy? A welfare program that targets only certain groups in America is unconstitutional! You must serve all equally – no matter how squishy and compassionate the purpose is. It's the same as with the justice system in America. People with fame get off, people that aren't go to jail. Is that fair? No. Equal justice, equal welfare, equal everything.

And I agree that business interests have been served for so long in this country. That is why I, like you, am against government serving those interests as well. It's just as wrong as serving only the poor, or only the Christians, or only the whites, or only the men. True equality demands that we kick em all to the curb and serve the collective people, not individuals or commercial interests.

(About the Bible verse….. I did not say that my quote negated yours. It appeared that you were telling me that you didn't want to hear MY hymns (e.g.)… I merely used the passage after it to get a zinger in on liberalism.

And as I've always said. I love ya, Kathy. You're mostly wrong, but I still love ya.

And so far, the routine list of bad arguments dredged to support all kinds of federal encroachment into state and local affairs remails demolished, as we left them days earlier.

We're still waiting for Pelosi or anyone on here to answer the question she was asked, that she failed to answer.

You, too, have shared some personal information about yourself that I could now use to discredit your arguments and put you down as an individual. But I won't. Ever.

It has nothing to do with what Jesus said in the Bible. It has to do with the period of time he lived in.

Secondly, James Madison stated “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

That's nice, but we haven't been discussing charity. We've been discussing public policy.

Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON – nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.

One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person.

Two, government in this country has served business interests for most of its existence. Over the past 30 years or so, the relationship between private corporate interests and what we still refer to as the public sector (government, i.e.) has become so close as to be all but indistinguishable. The nexus between government — our elected officials — and the military-industrial complex (a term Eisenhower first used, in his presidential farewell address) is a huge threat to democracy. So if that's what worries you, you should be looking at things like Dick Cheney setting energy policy behind closed doors with companies like Enron, or at the influence that defense contractors have on decisions of war, the military, weapons procurement, budget issues, etc., or the hold that the private insurance industry has on the setting of health care policy. Telling me you're concerned about the influence of private corporate and special interests on government and obsessing about social welfare programs is crazy, in my view.

And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
“But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. ” After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.

My JPS translation reads:

“Did you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me,
those forty years in the wilderness,
O Israel!

And you shall carry off your “king”–
Sikkuth and Kiyyun,
The images you have made for yourselves,
of your astral deity–
as I drive you into exile beyond Damascus–
said the Lord, whose name is God of Hosts.

The space between the two sets of verses is in my edition, as are the quotes around king. And I don't follow your logic: How do these lines negate or contradict what went before?

Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.

And that sounds like fanatical religious extremism to me.

When Kathy's arguments dry up or don't hold water, she gets “done with you on this subject”.

In your case, after 1,146 comments. That should be done enough for anyone.

I know I go overboard on her at times, and when I do I try to dial it back for a bit and be nice. But then she goes off and makes some other completely asinine post (usually anti-American), and I cannot help myself.

Since you don't take anything Christ said in the Bible as fact, can you support that statement? Were you privy to His therapy sessions? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you pull that out of your hat?

Secondly, James Madison stated “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” I guess he, too, was a nutcase. Or did you sit in on his therapy session as well?

Do you not see my point in that? Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON – nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.

And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
“But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. ” After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.

Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.

Oh my god, that's perfect. You just totally confirmed what I said about conservatives' cynical opportunism about interpreting the Constitution.

Show me where it says they cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance, AD.

This really is funny. I used the same standard for health insurance mandates and disappearing people into secret prisons — namely, where in the Constitution is that authorized? — and you used exactly the opposite standard for each one: Where in the Constitution is that authorized? for a health insurance mandate, and Show me where the Constitution says you can't? for the secret prisons.

It's just perfect.

you agreed with me.

No, I did not.

you agreed with me.

No, I did not.

You didn't say spy – you said monitor

You are not serious. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Spy: 1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
4. To investigate intensively.
v.intr.
1. To engage in espionage.
2. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
3. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.

monitor:

1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver.
2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations.
3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people.
4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities.
5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination.
6. To direct.

I'm done with you in this discussion. I didn't realize I was arguing with a six-year-old.

So, you agree with me on 50%, and are wrong on the other 50%.

Not to mention fiscal philosophy.

1. First of all, it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to deny ANY person of due process. Read the Fifth Amendment. It says “persons” NOT citizens. Second, you are wrong even under your own definition. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and there have been other U.S. citizens detained without due process as well.

2. Really. Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it says that it's okay for the government to set up secret prisons and disappear people into them indefinitely with no due process. Show me where it says that, AR.

3. I think we all know by now that what was done to prisoners under the CIA interrogation program was torture. We've all seen the graphic descriptions. As you have said to me on several occasions, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.

4. Technically correct, since Congress passed legislation making Pres. Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance program legal, after the program had been operational, in violation of FISA, for years. If that's what constitutional means to you, there should be no issue of constitutionality at all with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, etc.

5. You are wrong, AR. The government does not have the legal right to spy on peacefully dissenting groups unless it has reason to believe there is specific illegal activity going on — and no, just opposing government policies does not constitute reason to believe there might be illegal activity. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Maryland about a year and a half ago to compel the state police to release records of surveillance activities on such groups, and is engaged in several other ongoing legal battles with the government concerning government surveillance of mosques, antiwar groups, etc.

6. It is wrong. There is no such thing as specified “zones” in this country where free speech can take place. The entire country is a free speech zone.

My “desires” have nothing to do with this subject. My strong interest in and support for the rule of law in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular is what's relevant here. As frustrating and ultimately pointless as it is to get into an “It's you, no it's you, no it's YOU” thing, I feel compelled to point out that it's the right that seems to have problems distinguishing between what they believe should be unconstitutional and what actually is. To argue on the one hand that health care reform, or specifically a mandate to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional; and on the other to insist that it's perfectly legal for the government to kidnap people off the streets or passing through an airport on their way home with absolutely no need to show cause or suspicion of anything, and hold and interrogate them, using torture, basically forever if desired; does not conform to any understanding I have ever had of respect for the reality of the law. And that really IS the right's operating method these days. Interpret the Constitution narrowly on so-called “liberal” issues; interpret the Constitution expansively on issues dear to conservatives. The cynical opportunism of conservative/Republican judicial and legal philosophy is really quite astounding.

You are *extremely* late with this news. Jazz wrote a post about it yesterday.

You seem to confuse your desires with the reality of the law. A common trait of Liberals in general, I might add.

Ed Morrissey has resonded to you.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/24/not-quite…

Doesn't seen impressed by your position.

Jesus would not have understood that distinction, but he lived in very different times. You are entitled to your absolute unquestioned certainties as I am entitled to my examined understandings, beliefs, and values. I am never going to convince you that there is no black or white in human existence, only shades of gray; and you are never going to convince me that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from the man in the clouds rather than as inspired wisdom expressed in the language of metaphor, allusion, and paradox.

That's okay. (It has to be okay, since it's the way it is.) But having said that, I worry about the uneasy relationship between pluralistic, liberal democracy and absolute religious and political certainty. I cannot eliminate the dangers, but I will continue to pay close attention to them.

______________

“Spare Me the sound of your hymns,
and let Me not hear the music of your lutes,
But let justice well up like water,
Righteousness like an unfailing stream.” — Amos 5:23-24

Doug,

Cite? I think you've put quote marks around someone else's, at best, paraphrase. That does not sound like 18th century writing style to me.

And I named several things the government may not do, probably half a dozen times, but heck, who's counting? I'll name them again.

1. The government may not arrest persons at will and detain them without informing them of the charges against them, without access to an attorney, without legal due process, indefinitely.

2. The government may not establish secret prison sites, inside or outside of the United States' borders, and disappear persons into those sites, with no accountability.

3. The government may not employ torture against any person under any circumstances whatsoever.

4. The government may not intercept and/or read the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens without a search warrant obtained upon the presenting of probable cause.

5. The government may not monitor the activities of peacefully dissenting political groups and organizations, such as anti-war organizations, without a search warrant that would not be given unless there was probable cause of violent, illegal, or otherwise dangerous activity.

6. The government may not create small, enclosed spaces within which political dissent can be expressed, and outside of which political dissent is subject to arrest and detention.

I can give you some more examples. Would you like me to?