Charlie Rose

Shrdlu42  07/01/2011 03:11 PM Report

One last thing, Mr. Gelles, to the extent you appear to reject "conservative" economic theory (especially as peddled by the Republi-Cons), you and I are allies.

That doesn't mean, however, I subscribe to the theories you espouse. Frankly, I'm skeptical about ALL economic philosophies (except the concept of cost/benefit analysis)!

Shrdlu42  07/01/2011 03:01 PM Report

JohnGelles on 06/28/2011 @ 07:00 AM wrote: “In the matter of the 14th Amendment and the power of Congress to declare it has no more money, it is interesting that this Amendment came at approximately the same time as disputes arose over GREENBACKS as money under applicable law.”

Not quite. The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866, and ratified in 1868. The use of paper money (“greenbacks”) both precedes that Amendment and continued long after it, right up to the present time. (So your claim that “Greenback money issuance was discontinued in its then practical form” is incorrect.)

The Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with “greenbacks”. As I said before, Section 4 of the Amendment (the only possibly relevant portion) had to do with disowning and voiding Confederate debt, not with authorizing paper money, debt “ceilings”, or anything else.

By the way, the “disputes” about paper money arose later, and did not involve the 14th Amendment. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note (Though I advise caution when using Wikipedia, this is a good introduction to the subject.)

Shrdlu42  07/01/2011 02:41 PM Report

Dear Mr. Gelles, I shall skip over the rest of your incoherent, disjointed, stream-of-consciousness rambling, but I will reply to your statement that “Only a moron would agree with Scalia.”

While I’m no fan of the man (witness my earlier sarcastic remark about what he did to the Second Amendment), “even a busted clock is correct twice a day”.

If you bothered to READ the decision about video games you might actually understand it, and even come to consider that it might just be correct. (Or, alternatively, be able to make an INFORMED comment.)

But that’s an intellectual task I doubt you’re suited for.

Shrdlu42  07/01/2011 02:35 PM Report

Now, Mr. Gelles, as to the “substance” of what you wrote, let’s start with the concept of “judicial review” which you seem so opposed to.

It has been understood from the start that “it is emphatically the duty and province of the judicial department to say what the law is” - Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). This was recognized in the debates over the Constitution, and in “The Federalist Papers”.

For example, see Paper number 78, where Hamilton wrote that: “A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. IT THEREFORE BELONGS TO THEM TO ASCERTAIN ITS MEANING . . .” [emphasis added]

(Oh, and by the way, it’s the first branch of government, the Legislative, that makes laws, not the second branch - the Executive. Furthermore, the Constitution is not the creation of either branch, but of “We the People”.)

Case law, as you so mockingly call it, is in fact (when properly employed) the true source of “judicial restraint”. Precedent binds the courts and, except in limited situations where prior cases may be overruled, what a judge decides today should continue to be the “rule of decision” tomorrow. Otherwise, judges truly can just “make it up as they go along”, the very thing you seem to condemn (and falsely accuse the courts of).

I’ll be the first to agree precedent isn’t always followed as it should be (especially by the “conservatives” currently on the Supreme Court), but that’s hardly an excuse for completely ignoring “case law”.

Oh, and unless the courts have the penultimate say, the Constitution is truly “just a piece of paper”. How would you resolve a constitutional conflict between the Congress and the President? Put everything up to an immediate plebiscite? What if Congress and the President together pass a law that’s flagrantly unconstitutional (say, banning all religions), are you claiming the Supreme Court can do nothing about it? In that case, the Bill of Rights is meaningless! The whole point of having a written Constitution is to put some things beyond the reach of the political branches of government. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to make sure the Constitution is obeyed! (And yes, that means the Constitution as the courts understand it.)

“We shall one day have a brand new Constitution of very few word.” We already have one of the shortest Constitutions on the planet. The whole reason and need for judicial interpretation flows from that fact.

“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, WOULD PARTAKE OF THE PROLIXITY OF A LEGAL CODE, AND COULD SCARCELY BE EMBRACED BY THE HUMAN MIND. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose this objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. - McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) [emphasis added]

As much as your limited attention span may wish for a Constitution that can fit inside one “twitter”, you can’t both have a short one AND decry the need for interpretation. Either we have a Constitution a mile long and wide (covering every conceivable topic in excruciating detail), or (like Great Britain) we have an unwritten Constitution, which basically consists of the entire body of laws passed by Parliament (or the Congress). Good luck getting a 9th grader to read that!

Oh, and our Constitution was meant for an informed, adult, and mature people. I guess you don’t qualify!

Shrdlu42  07/01/2011 02:08 PM Report

JohnGelles on 06/28/2011 @ 06:34 AM wrote: “Shrdlu42 explains to our most insistent explainer in this forum of amateurs, who gets his reaction to CR Shows out first (most days,) the following compelling point: ..... In short, sir, while I agree we should not take our views about Constitutional Law from Time magazine, neither should we take it from you!”

I’ll deal with the “substance” of your largely incoherent (and appallingly badly written) Comments in a moment, but first a reply to your “ad hominem” attack on me.

I ask no one to “take their views” from me, only to consider what I write, and to check the facts for themselves. Unless Mr. Stengel, I did NOT rely on “conclusory utterances”, but backed up my opinion with both facts and reason, discussing (and sometimes quoting) the relevant portions of the Constitution, as well as the history behind those provision.

As for being an “amateur”, is that what you call being a retired attorney who has both studied and practiced Law for over 20 years, and is admitted to practice in New York, including both State and Federal courts, and admitted to a little institution known as the Supreme Court of the United States?

No, that doesn’t mean what I write is necessarily correct (re-read the third paragraph, above), but it does mean I’m no amateur!

JohnGelles  06/29/2011 01:39 AM Report

http://www.ustaxreform.us/91308.htm

The link above to Mathew Fortater's advice on Abba Lerher's legacy explains in clear sentences and brief form solutions to financial needs today. I only wish we could arouse a constituency for these possibilities now.

JohnGelles  06/28/2011 07:00 AM Report

In the matter of the 14th Amendment and the power of Congress to declare it has no more money, it is interesting that this Amendment came at approximately the same time as disputes arose over GREENBACKS as money under applicable law.

Greenback money issuance was discontinued in its then practical form. It is now practical again in the form of Federal Reserve purchase for cash of Treasury bonds.

The insitutions of lanfuage, law, money and remembering History are all tightly bound together by national cultures, customs and governments. Compounding the difficulty of best use of them, is the idea that government is the problem not the solution. God bless the conservatives -- they have decided to conserve our garbage not our energy. So far, energy costs more than garbage so saving it can reduce costs. Cost reduction is our supreme desire and garbage is our reward.

JohnGelles  06/28/2011 06:34 AM Report

Shrdlu42 explains to our most insistent explainer in this forum of amateurs, who gets his reaction to CR Shows out first (most days,) the following compelling point:

..... In short, sir, while I agree we should not take our views about Constitutional Law from Time magazine, neither should we take it from you!

=================== end Shrdlu42 =====

The issue before us concerns the rule of law -- which, in turn, asks us to respect and not ignore our history when deciding today what to do to encourage a better tomorrow.

Rule in exercised by men not paper and ink.

Law and history share this in common: neither is yet objective.

..... They are opinions of observers (at best) of what happened in the past. Even when the past was preesent, it was never an objective model of what happens all the time.

..... They are opinions by observers supported by as much machinery as can conviently be assembed for that purpose.

..... In the forseeable future computers and recordings will be harnessed by Arificial Intelligence to improve the objectivity of law and history.

..... At that point the function of law, to prescribe that which is wanted and can be predicted, will be markedly improved.

..... Also, the function of history, to record a model of what happened, will be improved.

.

Today's case, wherein Justice Scalia found California lawmakers had violated the right of free speech corporations wanted in order to sell electronic games that allowed children to virtually (not really) murder and dismember women and other creatures, and do similar sick things. Scalia saw the Constitution inflormed on the dispute in question and acceptable in application of its principles and/or logic.

Only a moron would agree with Scalia.

.

American law seeks to settle disputes and not write the law but interpret it. To do this it begins with the notion that discrete disputes must be settled at some point once and for all. It calls this principle "the thing (discrete case) is adjudicated". Then it makes it's greatest error, it adds that the law changes with every case IF THE CASE HAS VALUE AS A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE CASES. It calls this principle "we have decided a new fine point in law".

This attempt to let justices and judges become lawmakers without rather than interpreters confounds the system beyond repair. It renders all law unpredictable and makes a mockery of the separation of powers. We are supposed to have three co-equal branches of government. Case law allows the third branch to become the second branch at will.

As a bonus for ruining the idea of law, case law allows for endless intellectual costs that can be billed by lawyers. America is the last bastion of Mandarinism -- the process of turning language upside down and inside out for profit.

,

We shall one day have a brand new Constitution of very few word. Not as short as the Ten Commandments, But short enough for the average 9th grader to almost recite by heart. Perhaps it will be no longer than The Ballad of Reading Gaol.

Shrdlu42  06/26/2011 10:38 PM Report

EPatrickMosman on 06/24/2011 @ 03:28 PM, wrote: “You and your guest Richard Stengel continue to show your lack of due diligence into Obama's blank past as you attribute to him honors and position as a Constitutional lawyer, expert, and possible even a Professor.”

Ah, yes, the attempt to claim Obama has a “secret” past, filled no doubt with proof of his Kenyan birth. You’re so busy swallowing and spreading “conspiracy theories” that you don’t even notice you’ve contradicted yourself. Yes, teaching at the University of Chicago Law School makes him a Professor - that’s the correct term for a “Lecturer”, especially a “Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996 to 2004). See the University’s “Statement Regarding Barack Obama” (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media). Furthermore, as FactCheck.org has noted, he’s in good company, since “six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists.” (http://factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/). So, yes, he was a professor of Constitutional Law.

As for whether he “studied or majored in Constitutional Law”, you can’t graduate law school (especially Magna Cum Laude from Harvard) without studying the Constitution. I don’t know of any “major” requirement in Law School, nor is such a major required to be a professor of the subject. So, thanks for making a totally false and irrelevant argument.

By the way, neither Charlie nor his guest called Obama an “expert”. They just said he was a constitutional lawyer, that he taught the subject at law school, and that he was a professor. ALL TRUE!

As to those “Czars”, the term is a media invention. There is no such official position within the U.S. government, let alone anyone with powers like an actual “Czar”. And the term did not originate with Obama. Did you likewise complain about the “Czars” created by Nixon, Reagan or the Bushes? In fact, the first Baseball Commissioner was referred to as the Baseball “Czar”, and he was appointed in 1919!

And speaking of his predecessor, did you complain when Bush The Second proclaimed (in his signing statements) that he could ignore any provision of law (including the Constitution itself), and actually did so (in secret, of course)? I certainly don’t recall Republi-Cons rushing to criticize him for it, but they sure defended him! So much for “checks and balances”.

(By the way, the Constitution clearly states that the Congress can invest the President with the power to appoint without confirmation “such inferior officers, as they think proper”. Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Some “czars” have been through the confirmation process, some didn’t need to. A fact that has been true for all “czars” for decades!)

And yes, the Constitution does provide “negative rights”. What do you think the entire Bill of Rights is, but a “negative” on the power of government (not just the President, by the way). It clearly states what the government cannot do - that’s about as “negative” as you can get.

As for the individual mandate: there is no “fine”, only a tax surcharge, so try to use the correct term. And the government “compels” us to do a lot of things: register for the draft, for one. And at one time you could be fined, imprisoned, and even lose your citizenship for “draft dodging”. I’d call that a pretty heavy “consequence” for a truly “individual mandate”.

(Though I agree that most of the analogies used by both supporters and opponents are “risible”, and red herrings. The mandate is not the same as either car insurance or broccoli. Then again, that has nothing to do with whether the government can impose such a mandate.)

The butchering of the Constitution by you and other commentators is deplorable. As is the apparent aversion to facts or accuracy.

Shrdlu42  06/26/2011 09:01 PM Report

REMant, on 06/24/2011 @ 11:21 AM, wrote: “It is completely irrelevant that the writers of this country's Constitution did not know about "World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. . . . .”

There is not enough space to respond to all of what you wrote, so this will have to be a (relatively) short refutation.

You are falling for a “conservative” argument that is wrong. True, the principles of the Constitution do not change, but the APPLICATION of those principles certainly do. You combine that with another fallacy: the “express enumeration” theory, under which a principle or concept must be literally set forth in the document for it to exist.

Quick question, sir: where does the term “Air Force” exist in the Constitution? It mentions an Army, a Navy, a Militia, it speaks of “land and naval forces”, but there is no mention of an Air Force. Under the “express enumeration theory”, we’d have to shut down the Air Force (along with NORAD, NASA, and all our spy, weather, and GPS satellites).

The answer, of course, is that Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1 gives Congress the power to ‘tax and spend’ to provide for the common defense AND general welfare. That power is broad enough to include the Air Force (etc.), as well as to include things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other social programs conservatives would love to use the “express enumeration” theory to jettison. Only if they shut down the Air Force too!

The Constitutional Convention most definitely DID violate the Articles of Confederation. Re-read its Article XIII. For someone who wants a strict view of the Constitution you are certainly being quite “liberal” with that Article. It expressly stated that any alteration in the Articles had to be “agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the LEGISLATURES of EVERY state”. (Emphasis added.)

In the first place, the Congress (created by those Articles) played no part in the drafting the Constitution. Second, the Constitution didn’t just “alter” the Articles of Confederation, it scrapped and replaced them utterly (thus exceedint its mandate, and what the Articles allowed). Third, many of the states created their own conventions to ratify it, rather than have their legislature do it. Finally, the Constitution itself declared it would go into effect when only nine states had ratified it, rather than EVERY state (as the Articles required).

By the way, the “Common Law” is still very much part of our law. For example, much of contract and tort law comes from and is based on the common law. While it has been changed by various statutes (such as Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code), when you sue to enforce a contract you are primarily relying on the Common Law we inherited from Britain. (Except in Louisiana, always excepting Louisiana, where the Napoleonic Code applies.)

Finally, while I agree that anyone who wants to study the Constitution should begin with its text, the argument that we should ignore judicial decisions is false. The Courts are the part of the government authorized to interpret and apply the document. That is the very essence of “the judicial power” the Constitution vests them with. With all due respect to the University of Chicago Press (and other sources), whose websites you invoke, I see no place where the Constitution vests them with any authority whatsoever!

In your haste to attack the “individual mandate”, you butcher both the Constitution and history. That’s not Law, sir, that’s mindless ideology on a rampage! I repeat the same challenge I made earlier, under your “restricted” reading of the Constitution how can we have an Air Force? (And I note that your Webster quote, made long after the Constitution was adopted and therefore irrelevant, would prevent Congress from instituting a draft, even though the power to “raise” armies is clearly expressed in the Constitution.)

Ditto your attempt to rewrite the Interstate Commerce Clause into a “rules of trade” clause. That’s not what the thing says. So much for your “reverence” for the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN. You jettison it whenever convenient (something I note conservatives tend to do. Just look at what Scalia did to half of the Second Amendment!)

In short, sir, while I agree we should not take our views about Constitutional Law from Time magazine, neither should we take it from you!

Shrdlu42  06/26/2011 08:05 PM Report

With all due respect, Mr. Stengel provides two good reasons one should seek legal advice from an attorney, and not a reporter or magazine editor.

He claims the (next to) last paragraph of the 14th Amendment forbids defaulting on debts. I fail to see how he derives that. True it declares that the validity of the U.S. public debt “shall not be questioned”, but that hardly prohibits the U.S. from defaulting on its debt obligations. It simply means those debts are valid. More importantly, a review of the entire paragraph (especially its second sentence), with due regard to its context (the aftermath of the Civil War), makes clear its purpose was to declare “illegal and void” the Confederate debts, as well as any claim for loss due to emancipation, while leaving intact the U.S. debts (especially those incurred during that War).

Then again, since Mr. “Original Intent” (Justice Scalia) had no trouble ignoring the first half of the Second Amendment, I suppose the second sentence of this paragraph can also be ignored.

He also stated that the Constitution creates a “not very powerful Executive”. That will come as a shock both to the opponents of the document (the “Anti-Federalists”) and to its supporters. Throughout “The Federalist Papers” arguments are made in support of the Constitution’s creation of a strong Federal government, with a strong Executive. True, much space is devoted to refuting charges that the President would have the powers of a King, but that’s hardly the same as saying the Executive would be “not very powerful”. To the contrary, one of the principle reasons the Constitution was drafted to replace the Articles of Confederation (which formed the first U.S. government) is precisely because that government proved too weak to be effective. The Federalists favored a strong Federal government, with an “energetic” Executive (to use Hamilton’s favorite word). They just didn’t favor giving a President the dictatorial powers of a King.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/24/2011 03:46 PM Report

Interesting to hear about South Africa's Constitution and how they went German with it. Especially the number of words with ours compared to South Africa's.

The US Constitution is about 7,000 words (Vermont's is the shortest and less than 7K) while South Africa's Constitution has about 32,000 words. WOW!

Check out this information on South Africa's Constituion:

http://endami.blogspot.com/

"South Africa has had five constitutions during its history. The first one, the South Africa Act of 1909 was actually an act of the British Parliament. The 1961 Constitution was adopted during apartheid to transform the country into a Republic and the 1983 tried to reform things a bit with a Tricameral parliament. The 1993 Constitution was an interim one that set out the framework for the process that created the current, democratic Constitution of 1996."

"My thesis looked at the readability (and factors affecting easy comprehension) of South African Constitutions at two specific points in time, but it is quite, or even more interesting to look at the whole developmental sequence."

http://endami.blogspot.com/

Wonder what the Arab Spring will bring the world in Constitutions?

EPatrickMosman  06/24/2011 03:28 PM Report

Mr Rose,

You and your guest Richard Stengel continue to show your lack of due diligence into Obama's blank past as you attribute to him honors and position as a Constitutional lawyer, expert, and possible even a Professor. There is no University record that he studied or majored in Constitutional law. The only truth is President Obama served at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law. This does not make him a Constitutional Professor, lawyer or an expert.

Further he has publicly shown his disdain for the Constitution by publicly declaring it to be a document of 'negative rights ' preventing the executive from exercising total control of the people and deliberately defies the Constitution's 'checks and balance' provisions by creating misnamed Czars, in reality 'commissars', to avoid the Senate confirmation process required by the Constitution and other unilateral actions that are not enumerated powers of the office of the President in the Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Mr.Stengel's attempt at examples to equate a government's request for its citizens to do something with no consequences if they don't to Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance or be punished by a fine is risible, a red herring.

Casey Stengel was more knowledgeable, eloquent and understandable on baseball than Richard Stengel was on the Constitution.

The defense of the Constitution by other commentators is applauded.

machngunjoe  06/24/2011 12:20 PM Report

ummm Ted I like Charlie too, but it sounds like you think he is Superman or something.

TedPalmer  06/24/2011 11:29 AM Report

Wow!! I knew that Mr. Rose is in a powerful position because anybody and everybody who is in a position of power, strength, and infulence wants to be on 'Charlie Rose' because they know that if they want to be heard by everybody else who is in a position of power, strength, and infulence the 'Charlie Rose' show is the place to be. But I didn't know that Charlie was in a position to specify some of the requirements for the editorial content of Time magazine. Last night Charlie gave a work assignment to Richard Stengel managing editor of 'Time' on the U.S. Constitution: Barack Obama's scholarly description of the U.S. Constitution versus his execution of his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as president. Then instructed him to report back here so we can talk about it.

Yea Charlie Rose..!! The new leader of the free world..!! Congradulations Charlie..!! You earned it; you deserve it; and you are the right person for the job. Keep up the great work..!!

Ted Palmer

REMant  06/24/2011 11:21 AM Report

It is completely irrelevant that the writers of this country's Constitution did not know about "World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga." And that's just the point. The laws of government, ethics and human behavior have not changed in thousands of years. They undoubtedly knew more about them than the author.

The Constitution can be viewed as an hypothesis. But just as in science or law itself, the fact that ppl may err doesn't absolve them seeking truth (or to make reference to Time's last such effort, God), and no one in the Pennsylvania State House argued "legal realism" of this sort. Not even the monarchists. The most Gouverneur Morris said was that what the Constitution means will be argued over like any contract and went about inserting ambiguities in it. The idea of the British "constitution," which is of this open-ended kind was thrown out with the common law. Nevertheless, our Constitution has an escape clause, in the form of making amendments. It is not up to the Congress or Supreme Court alone. The fact that the Federal govt has frequently violated the Constitution is no proof that it ought to be violated. Nor is the fact that societies propose new Constitutions that everything is a matter of precedent. The Convention was not, as is asserted in the Time article referred to (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html), in any case, held in violation of the Articles, which met the requirements of Article XIII of the latter, altho not without the debate.

Much has been written about the development of the idea of constitutionalism and fundamental law, but apparently Mr Stengel isn't familiar with it. It is so common, too, for law students to learn only what the courts have said about the Constitution, that they have no idea what it says on its face, much less what those who put it together, debated and voted on it, thought they were saying.

If you actually want to know more about the Constitution you can begin at The Founder's Constitution: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ (and on the necessary and proper clause specifically http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_18.html, and the general welfare clause http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html)

then see

Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, which contains Madison's Notes http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html

and

Jonathan Elliot's The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

more background

Letters of Delegates to Congress http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html

and on the Bill of Rights

The Annals of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html

and

Journal of William Maclay http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwmj.html

The 14th Amendment's Section 4, BTW, reads: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." I fail to see how that means we have to borrow more to pay the interest on it.

The Federal govt doesn't compel anyone to buy car insurance either, or be drafted. Daniel Webster in 1814: "The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion.... Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.... Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?"

Neither medical practice nor insurance have a damn thing to do with setting rules for trade among the states, which is what the commerce clause was meant to cover. It has nothing to do with how much water a toilet tank should hold either.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does state "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," but it doesn't make their parents citizens. But most likely this was not meant to have anything to do with Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to make immigration laws, since immigration was not limited at that time, with which few argued, and they clearly did not think illegal immigrants qualified. (See http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_citizenship.html)

I found most of opinions in the article completely disingenuous. The kind of thing that accounts for the fact that Americans do not know any of their own history, because because instead of learning it, they are just asked their opinion of it. It is in fact an extended editorial.

The Constitution was the product of compromise, but the men who wrote it, and most esp those who voted for it, despite what Morris may have wished or Mr Stengel supposes did not sign off on monarchy, not then, nor in the future. The republican principles are clear and guaranteed by the Federal govt to the states, and they rest on an idea of virtue, of truth and its discovery. That's what is meant by a nation of laws, not men, and I doubt even the Progressive Pragmatist Hand would've disagreed.* Were govt rather a matter of men without this consideration, we either would be some version of Madison's angels or under the thumb of an autocrat somewhat worse than that of Mr Justice Holmes's father. The Articles of Confederation would have been just fine, too. It is precisely because of this loss of virtue this country is in the condition it's in. For its part Time Magazine and its parent co have never been known for their objectivity, and I think, frankly, they have caused quite enough trouble.

*"What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow."