" wrote in
:

On 21 Apr 2012 13:20:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 20 Apr 2012 12:13:17 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible
anymore, due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies.
That used to be devaluation of one's currency, a much used
tactic in the past. When I was a teenager, the French franc had
devalued so much that "new" francs were issued, valued at
1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really
can't inflate their way out of the problems... at least until
Germany and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi
was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency
yet multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages.

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts
have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

Indeed

The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin).

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing
to do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the
currently greatest case before SCOTUS.

"The current CONCEPT of the Constitution" says it all. You have no
regard for it at all. It means whatever you want it to mean. You
really don't like freedom, do you?

This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make
the US a failure.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some
odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already
failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at
starting such things but again, they have no means to conduct it,
anymore than my declawed cats have.

You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution
there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was
discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.

You really don't understand the Constitution, at all.

Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and
top-down fiscal and economical policy.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

Yes.

That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much
better, despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and
Eurpe will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there
will not be anything like what some here call the recent
unpleasantness ...

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.

War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...

Laugh! That's certainly not the Europeon way.

As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...

Bull****. You have no regard for the Constitution, or this country.

Once more. This is the last time I try to educate you. After this you
are on your own.

When this country was started in a rebellion against the British, the
individual colonies (now called states) wanted to have more sovereignty
than they were accorded. A bunch of guys, now commonly called the
Founding Fathers, came up with a first draft of the country's basic
document, and they called it the Articles of Confederation. That very
rapidly proved unworkable and they reworked it until they came up with
the Constitution, but immediately they added a bunch of Amendments called
the Bill of Rights. More and more amendments followed later through the
years. Some were considered good immediately, at least until now, but
some were subsequently changed or retracted. To me that shows that the
Constitution is indeed a living document subject to amendments,
clarification and expansion.

You heard it here first, I think.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid