From Mike Rappaport

The very end of Justice Scalia's dissent this morning in AID v. Alliance for Open Society makes an interesting observation about the Constitution's claim of authority in Article VI. The Constitution does not demand that citizens in general accept its status as supreme law, but only office holders--those "assisting in the government's work." Citizens themselves "may be Communists or anarchists," as Scalia notes.

The fact that the Constitution does not impose itself directly on later generations, but only imposes an entrance condition on governmental institutions that were in the founding generation's control, is also important to evaluating "dead hand" objections to the Constitution's authority to govern future generations. We might think of Article VI as constitutional shrink-wrap. Many people, of course, object to cases like ProCD v. Zeidenberg and Hill v. Gateway, which enforce product-licensing conditions to which consumers have not explitly agreed, but have only accepted, implicitly, as a condition of obtaining a product. But the complaint with such cases is more complicated than simply complaining that the seller of a product has no right to impose a contract on consumers who want to have nothing to do with the seller. The issue is whether the seller of a product has the right to impose conditions on the sale of a product--a product created by the seller--on consumers. Likewise, the dead-hand objection to the legitimacy of the Constitution, or to originalist interpretation of it, is not about the authority of the founding generation to issue commands to later unwilling generations, but the authority of the founding generation to impose conditions on the use of institutions--governmental institutions created by the founders--passed on to later generations. To use another analogy, Aritcle VI is an in-rem, not in-personam, exercise of authority: a claim of authority with respect to a particular thing, commanding that those who want to use that thing do so in a particular way, not a claim of direct authority over people wanting nothing to do with the founders or their Constitution.

I somehow feel there's some deeper, useful truth here.  Needs more cogitation.

GREAT month.  Weather was nice, leg aches subsiding and I'm feeling good.  Did a ten-day-in-a-row sequence that I probably haven't done in over a dozen years.  It included tow two-a-day workouts.  Toward the end I was tired and not recovering fully but knew I was still improving.  Took Tuesday off, ran Wednesday, did two workouts on Thursday ("distance" and core), Friday off then over to the track for the June time trials.

Goals:

100<20.5     300<1:02     600<2:14

Results

100 in 15.9     300 in 55.6     600 in 2:32 (started well, finised well,bagged the middle because my brain pacer is off)

The 300 time was the best in a dozen  years.  The 100 was .7 off last years mark (from August)

Going to one or two neighborhood races in July just to get my feet wet again.  Think of those old-timers fantasy camps.  

So the question is: do I continue my slow-but-steady workout plan progression, or may I jump to my October preseason preparation to get ready to race?  I'm thinkin I jump ahead so I can better adapt to the pace, get my form back and get the organism prepared for some serious speed.

July is gonna be fun ... and fast!

According to the nonpartisan [Kaiser Family Foundation]’s June tracking poll, support for the health law among Democrats jumps dramatically when labeled “Obamacare,” vs. the plain old “health reform law” language some of us old school media types prefer. . . .

According to the poll, overall favorability of the law jumps from 35 percent to 42 percent when the term “Obamacare” is used. That’s almost entirely due to the enthusiastic reception it gets from Democrats, 58 percent of whom responded favorably to “health reform law,” compared with 73 percent for “Obamacare.”

Independents in the poll reacted about the same to both descriptors (about a third responded favorably while around a half responded unfavorably). Among Republicans, 76 percent responded unfavorably to “the health reform law.” That number jumped to 86 percent when “Obamacare” was used.

Chris Matthews Whines About Sun Harming Obama's Berlin Speech

NBC's Todd Excuses Obama's Poor Speech Performance: Crowd Too Small, 'It Was Hot'

of course his messages might have had SOMETHING to do with it

Obama Wrong to Link Religious Education to Civic Division

Many Studies Link Religious Education to Tolerance

not that many people actually HEARD it

What a difference a bad presidency makes

It's not like anybody ELSE in this administration is making sense

Hilarious: Dimwit Chuck Hagel Asks Indian Professor if He’s a Member of the Taliban. Video at the link.

Biden: 'Malarkey' Is a Spanish Word

I've read the decision and am currently working my way through a TON of opinion pieces from the legal field.  The one recurring theme which is being kept kind of quiet is the "Politician's Veto."

Twenty seven states utilize the referendum method of citizen action.  Hollingsworth has now gutted that power of the Citizen.  In any instance when "the people" pass a law, all the executive has to do is NOT defend it if challenged in court, and it will be set aside.

Rule of Law?  Not so much.  Rule of Man?  That's be my guess.  Bad idea.  And in ten to twelve years when the Donks are feced with an Elph using this method, they'll be screaming bloody murcer.  "WILL OF THE PEOPLE."

Left: Oppressor (White Man, rich capitalists) , oppressor (Amerinds)

Right:  Civilization (Anglo pioneers, capitalists), Barbarians (Amerinds, anti-capitalists)

Libertarians:  Freedom (you own it, name it whatever you want), Coersion (public outcry demanding that THEY be allowed to tell you how to treat your property)

I understand the Leftist position but cme down solidly in the Libertarian camp.  Yo, lefties:  take up a collection, but the team, and rename them the Plaid Hugging Geldings for all I care.

Frederick Douglass in an April 1865 speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, given just days after Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated:

The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks' "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.

The United States just erected a statue of Douglass in the Capitol. Lawmakers and visitors might elect to do more than just walk past it.