My New Book: The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution

[Brion McClanahan]

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.thefoundingfathersguideto...hp?id=RGNFFG01


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


Hope you enjoy it!

[Gurgi]

Your stuff going to be revisionist or what the thing actually said?

[Can_of_corn]

I requested it on Kindle.

[Brion McClanahan]

On what the thing actually said, at least how it was ratified by the States. You can get a free chapter from the link I provided if you want to take a look.

[waroriole]

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?

[Lucky Jim]

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.

[waroriole]

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.

[Lucky Jim]

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...

[waroriole]

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.

[Brion McClanahan]

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.

[Brion McClanahan]

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.

[Lucky Jim]

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.)

[waroriole]

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?

[Lucky Jim]

Can you elaborate on how that was made clear?

He'd probably prefer if you buy the book.

[Pedro Cerrano]

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).