Lost in Translation

Article 1, section 10 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section10 Section 10 is the final section in Article 1. This describes the limitations placed on the individual states. This basically states that individual states can't behave like independent countries (e.g. no treaties, alliances, separate currencies, etc.). It also says that states can't levy duties or fines on any kind of commercial or military ships without the approval of congress and that states can't wage war with other countries or with each other. This concludes Article 1, the Congress. Article 2 describes the Presidency. We'll take a break for a couple days then move on to that.

Could you explain in layman's terms what you mean by complex systems?

You are welcome. Notice the symmetry and elegance. 10,000 posts; Forum and Tech Support. Ah...

Article 1, section 9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 Whereas Article 1, section 8 describes those authorities explicitly granted to Congress, Article 1, section 9 describes the areas specifically prohibited to Congress. In other words, these are the items that Congress must not do. I find the following prohibition especially relevant: A "bill of attainder" is an act declaring that someone is guilty of a crime, typically issued without a trial. An "ex post facto law" is a law that retroactively makes something that was previously not illegal to be illegal. Why are these important? Well, to declare someone guilty without a trial (without the opportunity of defense) is a supreme act of injustice, and to declare an action illegal retroactively is to punish a person for a non-crime. All reasonable people must agree that this is wrong. Yet look what we are doing even now: we are applying our modern sensibilities - indeed our modern sense of justice - retroactively against the founders of the United States and finding them ex post facto guilty! This is one of the reasons that I am working through the Constitution like this. It's important to understand how the US was founded and what ideals are at its core lest we lose those ideals in our rush to suicide brought on by our self-hatred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Article 1, section 8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 Article 1, section 8 lists the powers expressly granted to Congress.

Are you referring to judicial activism? Judicial Activism refers to rulings that are based on personal sentiments rather than legal precedent. The term is often used as an antonym of Judicial Restraint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint In a nutshell, judicial activists use their positions as judge to reinterpret existing statutes in such a manner as to create new law where none had previously existed, thus bypassing the entire legislative process. There are many examples of judicial activism. The most recent example that comes to my mind is Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that in 2014 declared marriage as no longer a union between one man and one woman, but a union among any two people. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Here is a portion of the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts from that case: (bold added by me) Let me add that this is not a new phenomenon. Judges are human, too, and have been using their positions to reinterpret law and thus expand or contract its meaning for many years. That said, it's vital that judges refrain as best they can from judicial activism since it short circuits the entire legislative process and turns the court system into a form of "super legislature".

If the writing is good then all will be well. If...

Only 47 more hours to go before I respond to this thread.

Article 1, section 7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section7 Now we're getting into the meaty parts of Congress! Article 1, section 7 covers the process by which Congress approves legislation. Only the House of Representatives can initiate any revenue raising bill. Either the House or the Senate can initiate other bills. Bills (legislation) must pass both houses of Congress before they can be submitted to the President and signed into law. The President can sign a bill into law, veto (reject) it, or ignore it. If he ignores it then after ten days it automatically becomes law, unless the Congress is no longer in session, in which case it automatically is rejected. If the President rejects a bill then he can add comments as to why. The Congress then has the option to discuss the bill, modify it if desired, then re-vote on it. If they re-vote with a 2/3rd majority in both houses then they can override a Presidential veto and the bill becomes law. This is yet another example of the checks and balances in the US government. Congress creates legislation but needs the President to sign it into law - but even if the President refuses to sign it the bill can still become law if there is overwhelming support for it in Congress. I'll pause here and give people a chance to comment if they want. We'll pick this thread up tomorrow with section 8.

Article 1, section 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6 Members of Congress receive payment for services from the treasury of the United States. Excepting treason, felony, and danger to the public they are immune to arrest while performing their duties. That's a nice deal there. Also members of Congress can't double-dip on their duties - can't hold two offices at the same time, for example governor and senator.

Article 1, section 5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section5 Boilerplate stuff here. Each house shall manage its own operations, and neither house can just up and go home without the approval of the other house. Each house must keep a log or proceedings.

I hope not.

Is it wrong of me to do this?

I think your "raid and run" theory has merit. People love stuff but they hate to pay for it. Anonymity is a great veil. Grabbing and running is anonymoue so it's attractive. I can't "like" my own post so I'll have to live with quoting myself instead. As an example of the above, take a look at the Interwebs, specifically at anonymous communication such as Usenet, chat rooms, forums, or (my favorite) the comment sections on YouTube or blogs. People there are horrible! Why? Are they horrible in "real life?" Probably, but I bet they don't run around saying vindictive, spite-filled diatribes. But they do online. Why? 'Cause they be anon-e-mouse! They can "snatch 'n grab", "dine 'n dash", "raid 'd run!" So it really comes down to this: Who are you when you think @No One is watching?

I think your "raid and run" theory has merit. People love stuff but they hate to pay for it. Anonymity is a great veil. Grabbing and running is anonymoue so it's attractive.

"Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid." --John Wayne

Article 1, section 4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4 What is there really to say here? Each state may chose how they select their representatives. The Congress may alter the manner in which the states select representatives, but the Congress may not alter the place of choosing senators. Lastly Congress must assemble at least once a year. As you can see, the framers did not intend Congress to be a full-time occupation, or at least they did not intent for Congress to sit in session full time.

Regarding impeachment, it's important to note that the House of Representatives is solely responsible for charging a sitting president with impeachment but the Senate is responsible to trying him. Article 1, section 2 Article 1, section 3 This is actually a brilliant design. It is a check on the power of Congress. One portion of Congress can initiate impeachment while the other portion can implement it. This system of internal checks and balances is built into the US government, with one portion checking (or impeding) the power of the others, as we'll come to see as we continue through the document.

Article 1, section 3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3 Article 1, section 3 describes the structure of the Senate, including the minimum requirements on age (30 years old), citizenship (9 years) and residency. Whereas members of the House of Representative are selected in proportion to the population, Senators are selected two per state. And whereas members of the House serve for two years, Senators serve for six - with 1/3rd up for reelection every two years. This article goes on to describe the basic rules of the Senate, most notably the rules of impeachment. I have highlighted the sections pertaining to impeachment, above. An impeachment requires a 2/3rd vote of sitting members (typically 67 votes with 50 states - assuming all senators are present). This is a necessarily huge hurdle. Impeachments are quite serious and are supposed to be difficult, and are thus reserved for only the most heinous crimes. The impeachment itself is not a punishment, but does open the door for the person impeached to subsequently be pursued according to the regular judicial process.

Article 1, Section 2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2 Article 1, section 2 lists the basic requirements to serve as a member of the House of Representatives. It describes the minimum age (25 years), duration of citizenship (7 years), and residency requirements. It also describes the term of service (2 years) and lists the protocol to appoint a representative who vacates their seat in mid session. In addition, Article 1, section 2 also dictates that the states shall take a census every ten years and lists the manner in which representation shall be apportioned based upon the census. The manner is not by wealth (owning land), or by position (title) but by population among the states. The calculus here has been a source of confusion since the text does not specifically mention whether a "person" applies to both men and women. It does explicitly mention that those indentured (bound to service) are to be included, but non-citizens (in this case Native American Indians) are not. This makes sense in that indentured are expected to become citizens when their term of bondage expires while Indians were not citizens. Regarding the three fifths clause: this was a compromise among the northern (free) states and the southern (slave) states. The northern states did not want to count slaves for the purpose of representation, since slaves were not free to vote. The southern states wanted to count slaves equal to free men for the purposes of representation since slaves accounted for approximately 30% of the southern states' population doing so would grant southern states a much larger influence in Congress. Eventually the northern states and the southern states compromised on three fifths, less than the south wanted and more than the north wanted, but necessary in order to ratify the Constitution. http://www.government-and-constitution.org/us-constitution/three-fifths-compromise.htm

Thank you for showing interest in this thread. We'll get to this in Article 1, section 2.

Article 1 has ten sections. In order to keep this manageable we'll break them down one at a time. Article 1, section 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 The Constitution starts off pretty basic. Article 1, section 1 states that there shall be a Congress consisting of two houses, Senate and House of representatives, and that it shall be this body that is responsible to creating law. This in itself was a fairly novel concept, considering that many European countries had monarchies and law was to a large extent based upon the whim of the monarch.

Preamble to the Constitution https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble The preamble sets up the raison d'etre of the Constitution. It establishes the focus of the document. Notice the priorities: more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, liberty.

I'm staring at my new car and it won't go nowhere. Maybe I need to turn the key...?

Interesting TED Talk on memory, particularly false memory. It's a longish video (just over 17 minutes) but worth the watch. I find it especially relevant in light of what we witnessed during the Kavanaugh confirmation.