Jump to content
Brion McClanahan

My New Book: The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution

Recommended Posts

Greetings Os Fans:

I have been an Orioles fan since the early 80s, and have posted or lurked on this board since 2003.

I have a new book out on the Constitution, The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), and would love my fellow Os fans to pick up a copy or twenty. To summarize, it is a point by point discussion of the Constitution as ratified by the founding generation in 1787 and 1788 through their words. For example, what did the founding generation say about the meaning of the "general welfare clause," "necessary and proper clause" and "supremacy clause"? What did they think of executive power and the supreme court when the Constitution was going through the ratification process? I intended the book to be an easy to read primer that explains this essential period in American history.

Here is a link to the book: http://www.thefoundingfathersguidetotheconstitution.com/offers/offer.php?id=RGNFFG01

Here is a link to a review: http://lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson34.1.html

Hope you enjoy it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I'm assuming that you don't see the constitution as a living document that can be interpreted in a way to fit the current society we live in. So, if this is true how do you feel about Congress' delegation of power to administrative agencies? Unconstitutional or necessary evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian, I'm assuming that you don't see the constitution as a living document that can be interpreted in a way to fit the current society we live in. So, if this is true how do you feel about Congress' delegation of power to administrative agencies? Unconstitutional or necessary evil?

Well...I can't see this going anywhere non-political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...I can't see this going anywhere non-political.

I think you can have this discussion without going political. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to incite something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you can have this discussion without going political. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to incite something.

Oh, I don't mean to be accusatory. But the issue is fundamentally political, I think. And has been since Marbury.

Congrats to the author (truly), but for this meager lawyer, positive reviews on Lew Rockwell are pretty much an anti-endorsement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I don't mean to be accusatory. But the issue is fundamentally political, I think. And has been since Marbury.

Congrats to the author (truly), but for this meager lawyer, positive reviews on Lew Rockwell are pretty much an anti-endorsement...

I can't really argue that it's not political on some level, but I think the discussion would lead to talking over the heads of the knuckleheads who would make it an ugly conversation. You know, the kind who see their party in the same light as their football team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian, I'm assuming that you don't see the constitution as a living document that can be interpreted in a way to fit the current society we live in. So, if this is true how do you feel about Congress' delegation of power to administrative agencies? Unconstitutional or necessary evil?

By administrative agencies I am sure you are referencing those such as OSHA and the FCC, so if that is the case, the founding generation made it clear during the ratification process that such legislation would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate power it does not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I don't mean to be accusatory. But the issue is fundamentally political, I think. And has been since Marbury.

Congrats to the author (truly), but for this meager lawyer, positive reviews on Lew Rockwell are pretty much an anti-endorsement...

Actually, it has been since Chisholm v. Georgia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't really argue that it's not political on some level, but I think the discussion would lead to talking over the heads of the knuckleheads who would make it an ugly conversation. You know, the kind who see their party in the same light as their football team.

It may not get ugly - though it doesn't take rah-rah knuckle-headedness for this issue to get testy. Again, though - I don't want you to think that I have anything against the political dimensions of the conversation. I don't. And nothing against conservative interpretations, either - I mean, I preferred Chicago to Columbia and NYU when I went to law school for a reason. But it's no different than the way in which a conversation about genetics often ineluctably and inevitably leads to some really nasty stuff. In fact, it's exactly the same.

Actually, it has been since Chisholm v. Georgia.

Ha. Right. In other words, it's political at its core. (Marbury being a decent stand-in.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By administrative agencies I am sure you are referencing those such as OSHA and the FCC, so if that is the case, the founding generation made it clear during the ratification process that such legislation would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate power it does not have.

Can you elaborate on how that was made clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Con Law flashbacks....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*My Con Law professor actually had the balls to ask a question on our exam about the Postal Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 7).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Spring Training Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

Minor League Stats







  • Posts

    • Guys, I'm no moderator, but the interesting debate about McGregor, et al, has (IMHO) reached critical mass. 
    • Don't have anything on hand.  Not sure where to look or even if there is a trustworthy source for the information.  I'm mostly going be fallible memory of how hard guys threw and how, for the most part, left handed velocity is a couple ticks behind right handed velocity. As for your video, sure he looked good.  You chose a start in which he threw a shutout.  I remember DCab looking really good when he threw that one hitter against the Yankees. My point has been, this whole time, that you can't make it in the majors today with the K rate that McGregor had when he pitched. If you would like to show me guys have sustained success in today's game with a K rate under 4...
    • Can you give us a reference about where the evidence is for how "very few left handed pitchers threw 91 back in the late 70s"?     Maybe my statistical search is not looking in the same place.     Yeah, the junk baller who won our last World Series game probably ever.    Just watch the video and honestly tell me you think this guy couldn't pitch today.     
    • So few left handed pitchers threw 91 back in the late 70's that I just find it unlikely from a statistical standpoint.  I'm not old enough to remember late 70's McGregor.  The guy I remember in the 80's was more of a junkballer.
    • At the same time, you cited 103 mph as the reason older generation hitters would not do well today.  Exaggeration goes both ways in making a point about which I too was trying to communicate...i.e.  I do believe that many 1980s era players could certainly play well and thrive in today's game.     And that some of the pitching skill sets today might even be more valuable in today's game than they were back then.   Even if the velocity is not the same.         I certainly accept that the game is played differently today, different after the steroid era, and that the athletes playing it perform those aspects of the game differently than their predecessors.   Still haven't found the speed gun ratings on Scott in high school, but I suspect they were pretty good....I might just ask him...   Scott McGregor, El Segundo (Calif.), 1972 Although a teammate of Hall of Famer George Brett (as a sophomore and junior), it was McGregor who garnered more headlines during his three-year career under El Segundo legendary coach John Stevenson. McGregor was a three-time All-CIF selection and was twice named Player of the Year. He was also a Rawlings All-American as a senior. He set section records (which still stand) for career wins (51), career shutouts (20), shutouts in a season (9), and consecutive no-hitters (2). He also set the section record for career strikeouts (which has since been broken) with 496. He was the No. 14 overall pick in 1972 draft by the Yankees, but he was eventually traded to Baltimore. 
    • He's the top, He's the Colosseum! He's the top, A cornerstone of the Te-am! -- Pole Courter, from the musical "Anything Counts"  
    • You asked about velocity right? I love how you keep mentioning inner circle HoF players.  No word on how Frank Torre would do.  By concentrating on the top .1% you are missing out on an important issue I tried to relay to you.  Your average hitter is a lot more dangerous.   
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...