[Winstonm]

Quote

If you look at the actual powers of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, they're extremely minimal - much less than the other branches

I don't know about that. Section II seems to be fairly inclusive of all judicial power, i.e. in stating "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...."

Quote

Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

IMO, the reasons for the disparity in the Constitution is that the powers of the legislature and executive are limited and thus had to be specifically enumerated, while the powers of the Supreme Court, while narrow in scope were unlimited within that scope and thus needed less definition.

[Lobowolf]

There's a very wide gap between being authorized to hear cases, which by definition arise between specific parties, and being able to, for instance, strike down laws. The Court's power was extremely tenuous until into the 19th century.

[y66]

I highly recommend Page Smith's book The Constitution - A Documentary and Narrative History to anyone whose interest has been piqued by this thread. I started reading this book 2 days ago after reading Lobo's first post and I can't put it down.

In the intro, Smith says:

"The center and climax of this book are the debates in the Constitutional Convention convened in May, 1787, in Philadelphia. Everything leads up to this extraordinary meeting. Everything else in the book follows from it and refers back to it. It is the ur event. It is one of perhaps a dozen such occasions in the history of the race, and for the modern world it is the determinative event, one of those rare moments when intellect and experience combine to change the world.

"... Profoundly moving and profoundly mysterious, it recapitulates the inexhaustible drama of men's efforts to to discover how they may live together in some degree of harmony in communities, states and nations, and that of course is, and continues to be, the primary object of our attention under however many guises it may present itself: sociology, psychology, literature, poetry, philosophy, history, government, politics, economics -- they in essence all deal with the same question".

Profoundly moving and profoundly mysterious stuff? Double that.

[jtfanclub]

I like this article, myself....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-...ist=SecMostRead

[Winstonm]

Quote

[A TomDispatch recommendation: Bill Moyers had Andrew Bacevich on his Journal for an hour Friday night, discussing his new book, The Limits of Power (which is now the number one bestseller at Amazon.com). It was nothing short of a tutorial for the American people on the three-pronged crisis that faces us – economic, political, and military. Believe me, it's not to be missed and can still be watched at Moyers' Web site

[Lobowolf]

It's true that our non-response to the 1993 WTC attack was less expensive...certainly, at least, for the first 8 1/2 years.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Aug 19 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

It's true that our non-response to the 1993 WTC attack was less expensive...certainly, at least, for the first 8 1/2 years.

We were too busy bombing Yugoslavia (via NATO) in 1993
to worry about capturing terrorists.

[y66]

I enjoyed the discussion with Bill Moyers.

Bacevich is a knowledgeable, thoughtful, passionate speaker and he definitely has something to say about the seriously flawed thought process underlying our national security policy and foreign policy.

I like this guy. Will make time to read some of his stuff.

He doesn't talk about the loss of his son in our "utterly unnecessary" war in Iraq. How do you keep from being consumed by that? I hope I never have to figure that out.

[PassedOut]

y66, on Aug 20 2008, 06:30 AM, said:

He doesn't talk about the loss of his son in our "utterly unnecessary" war in Iraq. How do you keep from being consumed by that? I hope I never have to figure that out.

Me too. It's a terrible thing to lose a child in any situation.

My mother's brother was killed in WWII, and even though his parents strongly supported the war (they were furious that Norway was an occupied country), his loss was devastating. In his last letter to them, he wrote, "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas." Each Christmas after that, my grandparents would request that very song (music was a huge part of our lives) and would listen with tears streaming down.

Later I worked with an older man whose eldest son was killed in Vietnam. After a couple of years we had developed into a strong team and were in Florida on business.

After a few drinks one evening, he told me that his feelings of guilt over his son's death were always with him: His son had been reluctant to go, but my colleague had insisted that it was his son's duty to fight. Later he understood how wrong he had been, but his son was gone.

Perhaps speaking out effectively now is what allows Bacevich to cope with his pain.

[Winstonm]

y66, on Aug 20 2008, 06:30 AM, said:

I enjoyed the discussion with Bill Moyers.

Bacevich is a knowledgeable, thoughtful, passionate speaker and he definitely has something to say about the seriously flawed thought process underlying our national security policy and foreign policy.

I like this guy. Will make time to read some of his stuff.

He doesn't talk about the loss of his son in our "utterly unnecessary" war in Iraq. How do you keep from being consumed by that?  I hope I never have to figure that out.

I was struck, too, by how thoughtful and well-spoken was Bacevich, which to me gave even more credece to the thoughts he expressed.