Droning On




On Friday, the President said that he called off a retaliatory strike against Iran with just “ten minutes to spare.” Ostensibly the strike (or strikes?) were in response to the Iranian shooting down of an American reconnaissance drone and the recent attack on two oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, which the Administration is convinced were conducted by Iranian naval forces.

In his Tweets* the President expressed concern that as many as one hundred and fifty people could die in the strike(s) and that this cost was not “in proportion” to the shooting down of an unmanned drone. Given that, he called off the attack with minutes to spare and announced that he would try diplomatic pressure to resolve the issue.

Depending on what Media you consume, this was either a foolish thing for the President to do, or it was outrageous or a growing corner of the interwebs feels that his statement is hyperbole. Some mock the “no people on board” comments without context; others praise his discretion and willingness to back away from the abyss.

So where does all of this leave us?

I spent the weekend waiting for one specific piece of information that I believe would confirm or disprove my thoughts on the matter. That specific piece of data never – or at least not yet – has not been made available. That missing point has me wondering about the whole adventure. Frankly, I believe that there was a strike laid on and it was called off at a very late – possibly the last possible – moment.

On Saturday, it was announced that with the Presidents personal approval (just let it rattle around your head for a second), the US was (or had) conducted significant cyberattacks on Iran, specifically targeting their C3 systems that control their anti-air missile defense systems.

That leaves me with more questions than answers and much wondering about what is going to happen next…


*A week ago I told you that the Press Secretary is no longer needed. The Presidents handling of the calling off of the Iran Strike(s) via Twitter supports my hypothesis.


Advertisements

Supreme Rulings



As the 2018-19 Supreme Court Session winds down, three rulings have recently been released that have the attention of talking heads everywhere.

Joining Dave to chat about then is Pat the Lawyer from Constitution Thursday – The Saturday Podcast. First up, the Bladensburg Cross has passions running high, but the Court reached a 7-2 decision that this specific cross is NOT unconstitutional.

Next up, the Gundy case has Progressives apoplectic over Justice Alito’s concurrence to uphold the law which allows Congress to delegate to the Attorney General the control of rules constraining sexual offenders. In an unusual 5-3 ruling, Justice Alito made it clear that he would be happy to overturn the non-delegation doctrine, just not today…

Last up is the much ballyhooed Gamble case, in which the Court upheld the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. This isn’t just bad news for Mr. Gamble, but is a clear loss for the Administration and specifically President Trump. A bigger question, though, is why did the Prosecutors in Alabama feel the need to hammer Mr. Gamble?


Frederick Muhlenberg




In the wake of the elections of 1788, the 1st Congress of The United States began to gather in New York.

To say that absolutely nobody had any clue what to do would be the understatement of the last two centuries. Sure, they had the rules laid out in Article I and plenty of experience in State Legislatures, but nobody had any idea if this would actually work or not. Two States had not yet ratified the Constitution and consequently had not even held elections for the new Congress. Travel times were much different than today, as horses or walking were the only ways to get from there to here. Things were slow.

From March 4th, when the Congress convened, it would take a month before a quorum could be achieved. And before a single piece of legislation could be presented, debated or passed, the first order of business in the House was to elect the 1st Speaker of the House. In the Congress of a nation that was as yet strongly divided, the new Speaker was elected on the very first ballot. It was pretty much the only thing that went easy.

The hurdles faced by the 1st Congress were things that we take for granted in today’s Country. At least half of the Congressmen in New York believed that the new Constitution was not sustainable and that New Yorkers – and by extension Northerners – were conspiring to keep the Nations new capital in New York. As James Madison said, “We are in a wilderness with not a single footstep to guide us.”

And so with the Constitution as their guide and the son of a German Immigrant Luthern Pastor, Frederick Muhlenberg, at the gavel, things got underway…


%d bloggers like this: