The Constitution has a procedure for admitting new states, which is different when creating a state that includes part of an existing state (needs their approval) than when it doesn't. Obviously this implies the possibility of gaining new territory.

Exactly so. The powers allegedly granted by the Act came straight out of a DEA "wish list" dating from the Clinton administration, and in fact, those powers *have* been used a lot more in drug cases than in anything related to either terrorism, war, or espionage.

Should be part of the uniform. What a shame.

My son recently started cub scouts. When we went to the scout shop to get his uniform I saw a small pocket US Constitution. It was in the clearance section. I ask the man if they were getting more. He said, nah, nobody reads them anymore. It's just a waste of space. Wow! That's not the boy scouts I want my kids to learn from! He should have been handing them out free with a little American flag with every purchase.

I don't think your characterization of Jefferson is accurate. From the article:

But Napoleon had plans to re-establish the French empire in North America. In 1801, America learned that Spain had agreed to return Louisiana to France. Jefferson had always looked upon France as a friend in the world, but he knew this was a potential crisis. The new nation depended on New Orleans for its economic survival.

Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

France was not a threat. It needed money for war in Europe, that is why the Emperorer made the deal --- which was illegal even under French law. While Congress was whimpy, it was Jeffy who consciously disregarded his oath of office in the usual politican grab for more influence (power). Quite disappointing for a founding father.

It would appear it wasn't Jefferson that shredded the Constitution but it was Congress. But moreover, there just was no provision in the Constitution providing for the acquisition of new territory. Shredding may be a bit of a harsh characterization when action was needed to protect the nation from a foreign threat (Napoleonic France on the Mississippi). Interesting piece of history.


http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resourc...

It did seem hasty, but you're probably right. However, it leads me to think about what other horrors are sequestered in the closets of the Libs to be dragged out during the next opportunity? It gives one pause.

I detest the spineless middle grounder.

You speak of one reason why I do not care for the media-cheered and selected Sir Jeb of the entitled RINO Royal House of Bush.

President Jefferson in 1803 shred the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase (still commonly called by this name, but illegal under the Constitution and was, therefore, renamed to be a treaty). Every president since has sought to increase dictatorial power, building upon the shoulders of the preceding elected dictators. Nice system. Anyone see any flaws?

There's a lot of confusion out there -- much of it deliberate -- about the NSA's capture of data. It is not surveillance, but the blind capture and storage of data from telecommunications servers. Computers scan and index the data, but no one is supposed to look at any of the data without a court warrant from the secret surveillance court. Once a warrant is issued, then they can have the computers search for and call up the data specific to the warrant.

The problem is that people have looked at the data without warrants, and the additional problem is that the secret court gives rather blanket warrants.

The data that is captured and stored could be extremely useful in solving crimes, in tracking terrorists, and in gathering actionable intelligence. The authorizing authority needs to be moved back into the regular court system, however, and the warrants need to be specific enough to produce court-admissible evidence.

The programs that gather and index the data need to be written such that the computers will not allow access to the data without a court-issued warrant. I believe that would solve the problems that people see with the NSA system.

Pretty much dead on. However, the legislation was not actually all that hasty. It was all ready to go. Remember the Gingrich/Hart report on National Security and Terrorism that came out in early 2001 was calling for a new DHS to be created. All they needed was a crisis. So, just as the Obamacare abomination piece of legislation had been crafted for years in various versions - HillaryCare/RomneyCare - the DHS legislation in the "Patriot" Act was just waiting for the opportunity. Can't let good crises go to waste now, can we?

Exposing what the NSA is up to puts him in my A list. He has said that no matter what is done with him, others will follow. Sounds like something John Galt would say.

"Smart teachers ignore it. ... It tends to be banned more in Bible Belt towns."
They should just the kids the facts: the establishment and most of your parents do not want you to read this book.

Most definitely. Google banned books. There are some real eyebrow raisers on it.

It's been on banned book lists for years. Smart teachers ignore it. It's also not a nationwide ban. It tends to be banned more in Bible Belt towns.

"The msm will fan the flames of panic regarding national security."
If the flames of panic approachs works with the public, the comeback should be this: Renew it with strict rules that it can only be used in cases of extremist who pose a threat to national security. Law enforcement will have to be careful if they accidentally use it to catch a kidnapper, drug dealer, common murderer, etc, b/c they won't be able to use any evidence they got through spying powers. They can only break out these powers against something like extremists trying to biuld a dirty bomb or something.

This is all a game b/c the people who want those powers don't want them for one specific crime. Politiclaly motivated murder (i.e. "terrorism") are just a good way to sell more gov't power.

I would hazard a guess that they will never let the Anti-Patriot act die - they have too much power and pork at stake in this anti-American act, and the ability to take it even further.

Of all the things Bush's cabinet did, this is one thing I cannot forgive him or them for.

The msm will fan the flames of panic regarding national security. But they need to be ignored. Only rational minds can win this. There are few on the Hill.

Scary probability.

Well said, and refreshingly honest. The upcoming generations have no idea what will have been lost. We do though. It is up to us to be heard and not take this anymore.

It is horrendous. But not very surprising. The Am-
erican voters (by and large) deserve it. Because
they insisted on voting in statist politicians who
offered to give them the power to force their hands
into other people's pockets. But those not old
enough to vote do not deserve it. Well, we still
have to fight.

Good thought!

A morbid mind game would be to figure out the stages of this horrid transformation.

Socialist philanthropy runs rampant
China calls part of the debt
Individual and corporate taxes increase
Economy drops and layoffs amass
Media and Government blame greedy, uncontrolled corporations
Government steps in to fix
Economy collapses
Some media blames government
Government takes over media
1984
We merge with China