which could explain part of the reason why I blog about politics: it gives me something to do that a) has absolutely nothing to do with calculus, b)I actually enjoy, and c) doesn’t make me want to tear my hair out.

lol sounds like why I started blogging politics.

Good to have you on board bud. hopefully you won’t be as negligent in posting as I’ve been. And it’s always heartening to see another youngin (22 here) headed in the right direction.

Thr time is set to West Coast time, courtesy of Eric, my blog father. Even still, 7:31 is early for me, but school is back in session here in Jersey. ;-)

Nice to see my first three topics have been laid out for me already. I’d be more than happy to discuss BSA v. Dale and “Don’t ask don’t tell.” And I’ve got some ideas germinating about the apparent disconnect between “mainstream libertarians” (oxymoron if there ever was one) and the war. But that’s a little more in depth, so it’ll have to wait a bit.

Suffice to say for now that Jefferson was a very smart man, and right about a lot of things, but not necessarily about everything.

Oh, and Robert…3:31 in the a.m.?!? That’s early/late by even my skewed AerE standards.

1. A usurpation of State prerogatives
2. a de facto “federal drinking age”
3. Just as silly as Prohibition. The only reason they can get away with it is that such a small percentage of the voters are between 18 and 21. This, of course, would be easier to deal with if we didn’t have the 17th amendment in the way.

Just one more example of what happens when you give all the power to one group of people.

Two things:

1. There is no “federal drinking age.” There is federal coercion, via the highway funds, on the states to make their drinking ages 21. Discuss.

2. Eagle Scout and ROTC, eh? Any chance we could get some discussion of BSA v. Dale and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Gotta make nice with us gays if you’re gonna be a proper libertarian. ;-)

Oh, and regarding the drinking age, buying homebrew equipment and ingredients has no age restriction :-)

The power of declaring war being with the Legislature, the Executive should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war in preference of non-intercourse, which will be preferred by a great many.

I opposed the right of the President to declare anything future on the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?

Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. I have barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our citizens from violence, to patrol within the borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property.

As the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.

Congress [must] be called [if there] is a justifiable cause of war; and as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.

We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.

The making reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. Remonstrance and refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it is considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were important enough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step, Congress must be called on to take it; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive.

The question of war being placed by the Constitution with the Legislature alone, respect to that [makes] it [the Executive’s] duty to restrain the operations of our militia to those merely defensive; and considerations involving the public satisfaction, and peculiarly my own, require that the decision of that question, whichever way it be, should be pronounced definitely by the Legislature themselves.

I couldn’t agree more with you.

Mike said:
we’re currently engaged in a war

The Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power…to declare war.

Mike, I’m sure you can figure out my question.