I see your point. It does sound like that, although not meant to. I was re-reading an article in one of my New American publications, about our Constitutional Anchor. And it gets me fired up everytime I read it. The preamble of the article goes, "Our priceless Constitution secures our God-given rights by keeping America safely anchored within the rule of law. We must not drift from it's timeless principles".

A little further down in the article, "More than two centuries have passed since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were drafted, and over that time we have gone from a horse-and-buggy era to the spaceshuttle. But changing times do not change timeless truthes, no matter how great our technological achievements or how "enlightened" our times."

And as Hamilton put it in the Federalist #78, "No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Like I said, a very good article, with good quotes from Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson. So if I sounded out of line, my apologies. I should have remembered as Jefferson said, "Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism... In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man". There's more, but I'm sure you know it as it's from the Kentucky resolutions.

Funny thing about FOX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84er11W9rU4

Two funny things, actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gh6r5ALVMo

It sounds like it.

No need to apologize to me; we all know how I like to argue. There are indeed people who believe the Constitution is open to interpretation. I'm not one of them, but still there are and always have been different interpretations of what something means. One man's "Judges legislating from the bench" is another man's "Ninth Amendment protections". Hamilton believed he had the right to set up a National Bank. Madison thought that was a travesty of limited government. Jefferson thought Hamilton exceeded his authority by taking his proposals directly to congress rather than submitting his proposals to his boss, the president. Washington agreed in principle, but liked Hamilton's ideas and looked the other way. Who was right? It all depends on your interpretation.

When President Jefferson was negotiating with Napoleon to buy all the French holdings east of the Mississippi for $12 million, Napoleon suddenly found himself unable to defend the territory west of the Big River from the British, and offered it to the US for an extra $3 million - $15 million total. Jefferson grabbed at the idea, but recognized that the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the authority to buy foreign lands. He felt that a new Amendment was needed and told his Secretary of State to ask congress for one. Madison replied that by that time the Dutch harbors might be free of Ice, the French army could move and Napoleon could easily change his mind. And if that didn't happen, they could end up staring at a new British presence to the west, occupying the entire continent. He then informed his boss that other countries could buy land, and we assumed that we could take land by force in time of war, so why couldn't we buy land when it was offered. He said "Let's do this: tell congress to appropriate the money, and if they don't like it they can object. We can make an amendment after the fact." As it turned out, even the staunchest Federalists and Jefferson-haters all thought it was a great idea and gave Jefferson the money post-haste.

So the "Father of the Constitution" interpreted it his own way, gave his boss new powers the document did not grant the President, and changed the rules on his own recognizance. And today people who don't know anything criticize Jefferson for preaching smaller government while doubling the size of the country. They also don't notice that he didn't double the size of the government, just the land area.

Oops. I got so excited I forgot this was a thread about Biden. Sorry.

I don't have a TV (at least not one that's good for anything but a DVD connection) so I have to wait to see the debates on YouTube.

The BBC's "Most Emailed" stories bar describes the outcome of the debate pretty accurately, I thought:

:hmm:

Man, that last one deserves its own thread! What are the political ramifications? Financial? Does that mean the end of life as we know it? Or just of civilization? Science? Religion?

Is the gator okay?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096370/posts

JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES FROM THE DEBATE

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Did anyone else catch his little statement about what he and Obama want to do regarding mortgages? Not only do they want to allow bankruptcy judges to be allowed to adjust interest rates on mortgages, they want them to be able to adjust the principal amount. That's gonna help the situation a lot, isn't it? You think mortgages are worthless now? Just wait until a bankruptcy judge can adjust that $300,000 amount owed on that house that you couldn't afford to begin with down to $100,000. Mortgage lenders will then have the same excuse that credit card companies use to jack interest rates up to who knows where.

Interesting piece on the relationships of the parties regarding deregulation and the current mess. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...5/daily81.html