Cool News
JOHN ADAMS-athon On HBO2!! JOHN ADAMS Finale On HBO!!
I am – Hercules!!
I’ve been enjoying very much catching up with HBO’s “John Adams” miniseries from Tom Hanks’ production company (who knew the guy on the hundred-dollar bill was such a jerk?); if you’ve been meaning to catch up as well, HBO2 is on Sunday running the whole founding-father shebang starting at 1 p.m.
The series finale airs tonight at 9 p.m. on the regular HBO.
If you don’t subscribe to any of the HBOs, you can pre-order the DVD version here.
THE SEQUEL!!
VASTLY ENCHEAPENED HEROES!!
VASTLY ENCHEAPENED OFFICE!!
VASTLY ENCHEAPENED 30 ROCK!!
VASTLY ENCHEAPENED SCRUBS!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Sorry but this couldn't be more sleep inspiring.
-
I've enjoyed every minute. Fine work.
-
For a TV movie that is
-
From what I could tell, it was a pretty fair portrayal of the guy, but as seen from the POV of Adams, a man with a very different temperment. Given Franklin's success with diplomacy (and women), I'm not sure "jerk" is the right label.
-
I'm pretty sure he's talking about Alexander Hamilton. Who is on the $10 Bill.
-
The portrayal of Ben Franklin is very consistent with both his own writings and what we know about him during his travels to Europe. The man was arguably the very first American-born international celebrity/sex symbol, but how many of those were scientists and statesmen like Franklin? If anyone's a jerk here, it's Alexander Hamilton (and I've always thought that should be Burr's face on the $10 bill).
-
...or, has this miniseries been pretty lackluster? I think, for me personally, its been how they've turned John and Abigail Adams into basically husband and wife characters on an American sitcom; husband is automatically irrational, ignorant to family troubles, arrogant, insecure, etc. And the wife of course knows everything and is shown being exasperated with everything her husband does. Abigail really isn't a very interesting character because of this. She has the right answer and opinion for everything. I really can't remember one time in this whole series where her judgement has been proven wrong. I know that the thinking now, at least in America, is that women are these remarkable creatures who can do no wrong, especially when it comes to what a man should be doing, look like, etc. But, lets not forget that women, in fact, ARE human, and make mistakes. I severely doubt Abigail Adams had such a pristine record for being right in real life. Again, because she, like all of us, was HUMAN. So, it doesn't make her a very engaging character as opposed to John. I think that's the only real beef I've had with this miniseries. If the men in Hollywood could just get over their mommy-complexes we'd have more interesting female characters. And thereby, a more interesting dynamic between the male and female characters, and have a more engaging story. (I mean, at the end of the second-to-last episode, when John becomes president, Abagail tells him to stand up like he's a child!)
-
The relationship portrayed between John and Abigail is very much spot on. Abigail had a very sharp mind for reason and politics and there are numerous instances of her giving him advice that proved to be invaluable. John was indeed thought of as "obnoxious" and disliked by a fair number of people but he and Abigail shared a deep and abiding love that came from their complimenting each other greatly, and suffering greatly when they were apart.
If you study that period of time you will find that the miniseries left out ENORMOUS amounts of information (and even got a few things dead damn wrong, sadly) and this is simply because of the format and time allowed. For instance, they nearly ENTIRELY left out the close friendship Abigail, John, and Jefferson shared which was sorely broken due to the duplicity of Jefferson, only to be made some peace with "so they (Jefferson and Adams) could explain themselves to one another" during their declining years through a great deal of correspondence. This is only barely hinted at in the series but comprised a major episode in their lives.
As much as Franklin couldn't keep it in his pants and was most skilled at playing the social games, John and Abigail were much as seen. John was passionate, to the point, and a pit-bull when he sank his teeth into something he believed was right and Abigail provided a strong sounding board -- one of the few people he ever truly trusted -- and rudder for him.
If Abigail lived today, her role may have been more in the lime-light but 240 years ago they expressed themselves through their advice and influence. You can either take history in it's context or...ignore it, re-write it the way you want to imagine it. But Fantasy isn't history. -
the score is solid although derivitive. quick, without thinking, who is your favorite film composer?
-
first!
-
I haven't read the book, but there are a lot of scenes where she's scrubbing floors or wiping windows - and then there's the whole smallpox episode.
-
Yes this series has been excellent. I especially like the relationships between Adams and Jefferson and Adams and Abigail. Yes, Adams was a jerk. He was a brilliant jerk.
-
Adams was a complicated character and one Americans don't much learn about... so this gives the man his due while also revealing why so many disliked him. Excellent work and I will miss not having new episodes.
-
Stephen Dillane's portrayal of the cultured and mercurial Thomas Jefferson is just as I imagine him. Word has it that Playtone has optioned David McCullough's other Revolutionary War history "1776." If that miniseries were to happen, it would be fitting if all the actors from "John Adams" were brought back to reprise their roles. That I want to learn more about these characters is a mark of greatness of this mini.
-
wow, for a couple of minutes there, i didn't know who it was. excellent series. can't wait to see how it all ends.
-
to mention john adams? at least it got one TB before the mini-series ended.
actors that played Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington all upstaged Giamatti's Adams. But its been a solid mini-series. -
I'm a bit of an American Revolution nerd and Adams is my favorite of an extraordinary lineup of individuals. McCullough's book was one of the best I have ever read on the subject and when I heard that the same team behind the amazing From The Earth To The Moon and Band of Brothers was going to make a miniseries based on the book, I was overjoyed to say the least. The life of John Adams is such an incredible story and the possibilities for compelling television drama in McCullough's book alone is indisputable.
However, I have found the series to be sketchy at best and shallow at worst. The performances are generally very good (the guy playing Charles being a notable exception) and the production design is excellent, but it's like HBO and Playtone were afraid of delving too deeply into the politics as if that would kill the drama. The fact that these men personified American politics in it's purest sense didn't seem to matter. The relationship between Adams and Jefferson alone pretty much boils down the basic differences we still see to this day in the United States. Despite this, their relationship in the series is vague, with little to illustrate what it was they differed on and how different they were as individuals.
Another thing which was virtually absent in the series was the fundamental differences between the American and French views of democracy and their respective revolutions.
All in all, a disappointment, even if it is still miles better than most everything else on American television. -
Couldn't watch this past ep. 2 because of all the tilted scenes/overdirection. I hope the director never works again. He ruined something that had so much potential.
-
It's a pretty good mini, but the horrible choice to fix great character actor David Morse (Washington) with what looks like a nose from a pair of Grouch Marx glasses is inexcuseable.
ANY TIME he is on screen it is all I can look at. His portrayal has been great, but I can't get past the lump of peach-colored clay they stuck to his face.
And they seem to be having a contest to see who can mumble their lines the quietest. It's a great-looking series but I can barely hear a word of it. -
It's only been on for almost 2 months, so anyone that wants to talk about it has to condense their overload of conversation into a few succinct points. I loved the series; found it entertaining and insightful. As far as the tilted camera, that's considered a 'dutch angle', and is a pretty common cinematography technique. As far as "overdirection", that's a pretty vague claim. The miniseries is definitely shot a little differently from most period pieces, with its Dutch angles, shaky-cam, and asymmetrical and sometimes off-putting composition. But I found that the rough cinematography to accurately reflect the era. If you can't accept different ways of shooting, you might want to stop watching stuff altogether.
-
re: "If you can't accept different ways of shooting, you might want to stop watching stuff altogether." Yeah. I did stop watching. That tilted scene technique is good to enhance or emphasize a particularly stunning revelation --- I don't mind that. But to use it during simple conversations that have no emotional substance is completely pointless. So yeah, it's overdirected, and to compare it to Dutch cinema is ridiculous. It's directed by a guy who thinks he's putting some artistic flair into it, when in fact he's creating massive distractions from the beautiful scenery and costumes and great acting.
-
Just terrific TV !!! Giamotti is amazing !!!!! And the actor playing Jefferson is wonderful as well, a very dreamy quality to his performance. I would love to see a continuation of the series based on Jefferson's years - told from his perspective. Sad to see it end.
-
The problem with the King George scene is that it doesn't come off at all as it apparently did in real life. In the show, George seemed aloof, cold and almost a bit threatening. According to the historical accounts, King George was visibly moved by Adams' opening words of greeting, and although the Adams family was treated coldly during their stay in England, Adams had a friendly if distant relationship to the king.
-
I guess it was hard to find the time and space for this in between all of your coverage of shitty superhero movies.
-
The score that the miniseries often references is from the grand master Stanley Kubrick's great underrated masterpiece "Barry Lyndon".
-
The British press at the time never gave Adams credit for anything and went out of their way to ridicule Adams and the very notion of an ambassador from "the colonies".
McCullough's book provides a description of the scene which is somewhat more nuanced than that of the British press. -
I thought they were kind of an odd choice myself. I like em in noir or thrillers or whatever, but kind of a weird fit for a historical period piece. Didn't affect my enjoyment of the show though, which I've liked quite a bit. Nice to still have some good drama on HBO after the demises of The Sopranos and The Wire.
-
I just keep picturing his character in It's Always Sunny in a powdered wig.
-
I'm thinking that part of the way the other characters are being portrayed are based on Adams' vie of them, based on writings of his, or whatever research McCullough did. I didn't really see Franklin being portrayed of that bad a guy. From his perspective, he figured you had to play the game and deal with the French's crap to get them to cozy up to you. He seems to have enjoyed doing it too much, but Adams attitude wasn't exactly right. He made a lot of demands from a country that didn't really have to help at all. I think Franklin thought that publicly condemning Adams was the only way to repair the damage he may have done.Now, I wonder why this show hasn't hinted at any of Jefferson's fun with the ladies, even though we have seen that he was enamored with the French Revolution. Also, I hadn't seen him portrayed as such a liberal of today. Seems like he is, anyway. I dunno, I just like this series focus on a very important founding father, who is often ignored for the more flamboyant and likeable Franklin and Jefferson. Plus, I'm always a fan of a curmudgeon. Does Giamatti's Adams remind anyone else of Archie Bunker. Grumpy, sitting there with a cigar in his mouth, reading the paper while looking disapprovingly at liberals... That Jefferson's a meathead.
-
But, of course a TV version of the events has to be shortened. A full length season of a TV series would have probably been taking things too far, at least as far as viewers are concerned. But let's just be happy they didn't try to turn it into a 2.5 hour movie
-
Apr 20, 2008 2:59:04 PM CDT
"...and to compare it to Dutch cinema is ridiculous."
by iamjack'suserid
No, what's ridiculous is to think because I reference Dutch angles I am referring to the whole of Dutch cinema.
And Tak Fujimoto was a cinematographer for this movie. Ya might want to look over his filmog because you might see that he probably knows what he's doing. -
but period pieces cost way too much, and im sure hbo was nervous about recouping on the backend...but to me, this is close to the best mini ever done on the time, even with the errors and the jumps...i do wish they had spent more time on the election of 1800, talk about dirty politics...and i would love to see series on both jefferson and john quincy...both were geniuses and men well ahead of their times...in fact, many of the founders were truly brilliant men, and that makes me feel a bit depressed....look how far we have fallen in terms of leadership...and they did miss out on showing how much influence abigail had during john's presidency...truly brilliant woman
-
the man was a forward thinker, knowing full well that a fractured country, with heavy leanings regarding states rights over fed would lead to turmoil and the possibility of civil war...which did end up happening
-
I really think they should have stuck to historical fact for the finale. It was interesting to see him travel to the future and see America in the present day, but sort of jarring in contrast to the rest of the series.
Ok, ok, I never actually watched this show. Sue me. -
So I saw the finale. WTF? Where in history does John Adams start gunning down people with a gatling gun and screaming "Democracy never lasts long!"
Ok, ok, I never actually watched this show. Sue me. -
Ennio Morricone
-
he felt that doing anything about secession was unconstitutional...so he did nothing...didnt stop the war from happening...i just wish they would stop teaching that the war was about slavery, that was a side issue...im wondering, if the sag/aftra strike goes off, will one of the networks buy the mini-series to show on network tv? this show does need a wide audience...
-
So the finale... John Adams opens a panel in his study and reveals ancient technology... from aliens??? Says Klaatu barada nikto and then disappears??? What happened to them sticking to historical facts???
Ok, ok, I never actually watched this show. Sue me. -
The first two issues really had a tension and an immediacy that was riveting, with the lead up to war and the declaration of independence. However, the focus afterwards has been much more broad and meandering as they skim through history at a much quicker clip. I'd had trouble getting invested in the issues raised when they're advanced so rapidly. Still, I'm looking forward to the finale tonight.
-
I don't even read any periodicals... wonder where that came from.
-
I saw the first two parts babysitting for a friend (they had cable. . . I don't). Can't wait to rent the entire series when it comes out on DVD.
-
There is some serious idiocy being spouted about the Civil War in this thread. Jefferson Davis was emphatically NOT working on abolition throughout the conspiracy before the Civil War. (He had an experiment running on his home plantation, but there was no -- none, zip, zero -- chance of it being extended throughout the CSA. Read CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephen's inaugural: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." So, Mr. Battle Royale, I'm not sure where you study your history (I grew up in SC and am finishing a US history PhD in NYC, so I know both sides), but the Civil War was, as they say, irrepressible.
-
I meant confederacy. But, really, same difference.
-
I do know who Tak is (although I clearly didn't recognize the lingo for "dutch angles" and misunderstood what you were saying as a result - sorry) but he is not the one who chooses to tilt the view. That is the director's choice. I highly respect Mr. Fujimoto. This director, however, I just can't.
-
It isn't "the far left" who have been arguing in court for the unitary power of the executive, despite the wishes of the Founders. It isn't "the far left" who recently decreed that the fourth amendment doesn't hold in wartime. And it isn't the "the far left" who've tried to mangle the constitution to allow for indefinite detention and torture, despite the Sixth and Eighth Amendments respectively. So, please, get your facts straight before spouting right-wing claptrap.
-
Sorry, speed reading was my undoing. I owe you an apology, SK229.
-
My mistake doesn't make your Civil War post any less wrong.
-
Apr 20, 2008 7:22:34 PM CDT
Then don't spout your opinions on the CW like they're facts.
by mostholy
And "college boy" is a strange epithet when we're talking about history. It does in fact help to know what you're talking about.
-
And I'm not the one who resorted to name-calling. Regardless, stay ignorant. It's not really my concern.
-
to inject levity into this talkback!
-
I think the music sounds rather blatantly lifted from LAST OF THE MOHICANS.
-
buchanan doing nothing did not stave off war...the conflict between the states and the fed persisted...no way could secession be allowed, and no negotiation would have worked...lincoln was handed over a broken government (im about to piss off a bunch of wingnuts with the following) just like the next prez will be handed a broken government...i think that is what is brilliant about this series...we really get to watch history repeat itself...that is why i wish more was done about the 1800 election...remember when they tried to paint kerry as being more french than american? they did the same to jefferson...our alliance with the french has always been tenous, and our love/hate relationship with our european brothers has been there since the beginning...and i always wonder, had we not fought for our independence, we most likely would have ended up like canada, and would that have been so bad?
-
Yes there were flaws (Adams and Jefferson resumed their friendship before Abigail died), but the letters were read brilliantly. Take the time to read all of Adams's letter to Jefferson when Abigail died. Very moving.
-
on various talkbacks for a few weeks.
Now, right before the finale, we get a discussion on it. -
200 years isn't really that long a time. And since candidates and politician love to constantly decide what the founding fathers intended, I'd say it makes perfect sense to actually go back and consider what they intended. It's pretty clear they only generally intended the same things, but were still very different about how to go about them. Adams, Franklin and Jefferson's discussion in France in this series put this on display. The constant interpretations of the Constitution never seem to bring up that Jefferson -- at least according to this show -- would've been perfectly happy if later generations updated the Constitution. Personally, I think analyzing all the flaws of these men only serves to show how great their achievements really were. That's what makes this series great, too.
-
It depended on the part of the country. In the Chesapeake area, where malarial diseases thrived, people tended to die younger. But in New England, life expectancy was always long, even in the Pilgrim period.
-
just curious
-
Apr 20, 2008 10:58:42 PM CDT
They shaved bald & wore wigs because of the lice epidemic
by orionsangels
-
I applaud this series for showing the Revolutionary period and the early days of this country, warts and all. The same goes for the characters, and it shows them for all that they are.
At first I was perplexed by Stephen Dillane's reserved portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, but as we saw more of him, I felt he completely embodied the convictions and contradictions manifest in our third President. In episode 2, it was interesting how he revealed his passion for the Revolution. Then a couple of episodes later, when the Adamses express their horror at the bloody French Revolution, Jefferson simply dismisses the violence in the way that most neocons talk about Iraqis slaughtering each other.
As for Giamatti's Adams, I feel he came off as intended. He was not a larger-than-life figure like Washington, but he was no less passionate for the cause of our independence and steering a course through treacherous times to create our "more perfect union."
Maybe our realities will never reach our Constitutional ideals. But I think these men should continue to be revered, and most importantly, heard by those of us who inherit their legacy. -
You're opening pandora's box with your neo-Confederate hogwash. A land grab by the Union? LOL! Jefferson Davis working to abolish slavery? LOL x 2!! You're a Southerner aren't you? Do you refer to the war as The War of Northern Aggression - you know - despite the fact that the Confederates fired the first shots?
-
listen up it is def not about money. do u really think paul giamatti would do an hbo series, i doubt that.
-
...Wnanahara7 is a notorious talkback douchebag. He doesn't post often, but when he does it almost always ends with him challenging talkbackers to physical battle (I shit you not). He once even said that I would be "put to the sword", either by him or someone else, after the revolution.
He fancies himself a socialist of sorts and will support any regime or ideology, regardless of how totalitarian, as long as it opposes the United States, which explains his odd soft spot for the Confederacy.
A classic wnanahara7 talkback:
http://tinyurl.com/4qq7cl
A complete tool. -
really...and nice tip of the cap to 1776, when during abby's surgery, abigail says to john "for god's sake john, sit down"...and i wonder, did it irk adams to think that jefferson had survived him (even when he didnt, as he had died hours before) and if you go, that is the way to go...surrounded by friends, family and slaves...
-
i dont think it wouldve scared away the stars...but the costs (like for rome) would have been too much for hbo alone to bear...
-
heads of state in europe wore wigs...barristers and judges to this day wear wigs (i believe, i could be wrong)i thought they shaved their heads for comfort...ill have to look it up
-
"hey it's that guy." to an A-list actor, although that can be a double-edged sword. Personally I loved his work prior to Sideways. I thought that was an overrated piece of tripe for wine snobs. The actors did a great job, I just didn't care for the plot itself. Hate it or not I loved the energy and emotion he put into Lady in the Water.
-
There was a bit of a drag in the middle with Adams in France, but I enjoyed it overall.
-
...What's next, Steve Buscemi as Lincoln? Actually, he was great in the role and the show was pretty good... and this from someone who usually hates these historical biopic sorts of things. I loved how they played it as "the Founding Father who was sort of a douche".
-
In a Spielberg pic coming out in the next year or 2. So it's not a character actor playing him. Instead, it's a British dude.
-
...he's like 8 feet tall and sort of gaunt, just like Lincoln was. And actually, Liam Neeson is Irish. Hint... if you ever meet him, DO NOT refer to him as being "British"... the Irish HATE that!
-
Very disappointed in this series. They should have focused on a specific period from the book and fleshed it out more thoroughly, rather than the broad, sketchy portrait shown here. Whether they were historically accurate or not, I find the various British accents of our founding fathers to be disconcerting. The portraits of Franklin and Hamilton are cartoonish and absurd. The "Batman angles" previously mentioned are beyond distracting, and shaky-cam has no place in a historical piece - it just feels too modern. Paul Giamatti, while physically accurate for the role, gives the character none of the commanding, passionate presence of Adams, rather coming off as a cranky mumbler most of the time. I FAR prefer William Daniels in the role (even with the singing), which speaks to just how off-the-mark Giamatti is here. With the creative players involved and the leadup to this miniseries so nicely whetting the appetite, I can't help but feel disappointed.
-
Adams and Franklin were the two obese founding fathers. So they got a slightly pudgy Giamatti and a svelt Wilkinson to play these guys?? Either find fat actors or fatten these guys up next time.
-
Because Herc, bless his heart, has a horrible taste in television. There was a talk back for every craptastic episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer but only one for a great series like John Adams. It's a crime, but at least we finally got one.
-
Hayes pledged protection of the rights of Negroes in the South, but at the same time advocated the restoration of "wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government." He should be running in THIS election.
-
in many scenes, you can hear flies on the soundtrack...as for daniels vs giamatti, i now believe that giamatti is much closer to the real adams than daniels...adams was not a true leader of men, he was obnoxious and disliked, petty and full of vanity...daniels comes off as just misunderstood, and the audience really likes him...in the hbo series, one is torn by this character....you watch him in europe and you find yourself screaming at him to shut the fuck up, you are gonna kill the revolution...
-
It's called Recount, and it premieres on HBO on May 25.
-
I think John Adams is crying again. Jesus, poor Giamatti's glands must be BAKED by now. Every other fucking scene, dude was welling up about something. [loved the series but -- bitchfest ensuing...] Laura Linney really started to suck by Eps 3-4; she always had this queer headjerk/shifty-eyed thing with strained expression. GW's nose was retarded...I could have still been engrossed in the character without what they must have thought was a correctly proportion GW nose. The meeting with KG3 was brilliant, though. Hated the scene where Giamatti is trasported into the future to gun down Democrats at the Capital with a Gatlin gun. Appreciated the artistry, but just felt disjointed.
-
... Public Service Announcement on the perils of Tooth Decay ever filmed...
-
I Liked your post on the civil war, but on your other post you are off- it is INDESPUTABLY the left that redefines the Constitution. Their interpretations of the 1st and 2nd amendments are patently absurd. (Actually it is a mis-statement to even say this as the left doesn’t even technically bother with “interpretations”- they use circuitous pseudo-logic that leads to outright revisionism based on anything but a rudimentary understanding of the language in which these amendments were written).
4TH Amendment
I am not sure what you are referring to regarding the 4th Amendment, but I assume you speak of the wiretapping from foreign sources which is not technically against the 4th Amendment as the search begins overseas and probable cause is obtained prior to internal searches (at least that is how it is supposed to work).
Regardless of the above it was also CLEARLY the left that defined the 4th Amendment in Modern Wartime as the lefts GREATEST HERO - FDR not only Did this EXACT THING- he also outright told Congress he had the authority to Wire Tap PRIOR to WWII and told them they had no right to evaluate the information/rejected their demands to know the details of what he was doing.
6th And 8th Amendments
On these you are Wrong as to what they even mean as they do NOT APPLY AT ALL TO NON- US CITIZENS (Though later baseless Supreme court rulings have watered that down to them applying on foreigners on US soil).
But also you don’t understand the History of these Amendments regardless of interpretation (as you are hilariously ascribing this as some new right wing interpretation) as these amendments HAVE NEVER APPLIED TO POWs….Hitler, his minions, and were not granted these “rights”- and neither were any Soldiers captured on a foreign battlefield in any war prior to now.- and last time I checked many of these wars were Waged by leaders bearing a “D” after their name. (Not that I criticize those leaders for most of this- but I do laugh at the current idiotic Democrat talking point that these are “Bush Policies” that started like last week
Oh yeah, and the great FDR also did actually outright crap on all the amendments you cite even when PROPERLY interpreted when he interned HUNNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Japanese Americans without Trial, cause (well other than their national origin), or time limit.
On a more friendly note, I respect that you are a student of history-what is your focus? You seem to know more about the Civil War period.
-
Eminent Domain ruling where the government can power grab your home or businessand hand the land to a corporate developer….Look it up….all Left ruling judges “yeah”, all “Rightwingers” on the Supreme court Nay…and in a most horrified manner- read the dissent it is professional, but outright scathing.
-
My dissertation focus is on the politics of the 1920s, but my speciality is 20th century US. I'm not going to get in the business of defending FDR and internment -- that's a loser's game. As for the other points. Regarding the 4th Amendment, I was referring to this (and we're talking inside the US): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304136.html (Hope I didn't just kill the talkback with a wraparound error.) Regarding the other amendments, we're not only talking about foreigners and enemy combatants -- although we definitely disagree that later Supreme Court rulings were "baseless" regarding those people -- but US citizens (cf Jose Padilla.)
Also, originalism is itself an interpretation, so it's not like the Left are the only folks out there ascribing meanings to the Bill of Rights that weren't extant at the time. (Or did the need for a well-regulated militia really protect assault weapons?) If there's on thing JOHN ADAMS made clear, it's that the Founders weren't all on the same page anyway, so trying to define one original meaning is an exercise in futility.
At any rate, I'd agree with your general point that both parties have been lousy at times with regard to civil liberties. -
A lush who became the country's greatest general, then president, then back to being a lush.
-
First we agree on some of this.
The link is dead- was that regarding Jose Padilla? If so, I agree that you have a point there- its still not an earth shaking precedent (the Japanese were the precedent for this), but I concur that this doesn’t excuse it- and I do also agree with your assessment in that case- he is an American citizen and I believe Bush had 7 days to hold him without charge, and up to 6 months under the Patriot act unless the Attorney General certifies every 6 months that he is a security risk -I don’t believe that happened- and even if it did, that part of the Patriot Act is in conflict with the Constitution and thus must be over-ruled as unconstitutional. (Though the war powers section does make this a bit vaguer, but the amendments over-ride this as clearly written amendments are meant by definition do).
-
On the foreigners and Enemy combatants – the Supreme court’s later decisions are certainly baseless. The Constitution is stated as the rules to Govern the People of The United States. Foreign Nationals are not that - so they don’t get the protections (also else a foreign national would have MORE rights in YOUR OWN country than you do- both having your rights and that of his country to demand additional international law and their national rules apply to him). Anyway the proof of this is BOTH seen in the consistent and pretty much unchallenged 200 year precedent of handling foreign combatants, and also in the wording of the Constitution itself.
“WE THE PEOPLE in order to provide for the COMMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.
The bill of rights adds via amendments to the same constitution, rights of the people of the united states- not to the people of the world. The supreme court has no jurisdiction over people of the world or the Presidents War Powers (Though Congress does to a great extent). Of note the supreme court sees the opposite as they denied extradition of a Mexican National murderer who was convicted and sentenced to death. in Txexas- The Supreme court rejected an Extradition order from the world court….saying the world court had no jurisdiction over the people or courts of Texas.
-
Finally Originalism is CERTAINLY not simply (Another) “Interpretation” Originalism is what was AGREED TO AND RATIFIED- the Constitution is our founding LEGAL DOCUMENT- all government powers are based SOLELY on this and all subsequent laws are subservient to it (unless they be an amendment to it). That means the words must be read as written – unless there is a gross example of conflict with the clear intent- if there is no clear intent- the words stand. That is the essence of a contract. Without this the constitution means “anything you want it to mean” and hence it means NOTHING. There is no way around this. I can argue a sentence means the opposite of what it says, but if my premise is based on a flawed understanding or “interpretation” of the grammar or sentence structure, then I am wrong…PERIOD. (As the left is on so many issues relating to this document). The Document also has a clear amendment process to modify it- this has been done many times…..to try to skirt around it by having the one UNELECTED branch (The Judiciary) that has NO SAY IN AMENDING IT invent new and erroneous interpretations of the English language is a direct affront to the Constitution on THREE LEVELS- it is a gross and unjustified power grab by the politician-judges who do it as it is in DIRECT conflict with the language of the document, are subverting the rules outlining it’s amendment process, AND this results in DIRECT conflict with he Constitution proper which GUARENTEES us a REPUBLICNAN form of government- the Judiciary being the only branch which is UNELECTED at the highest levels and thus EXCLUDED from law making.
More to the point your argument that the founders “were not all on the same page is UTTERLY MOOT. Parties in almost ANY contract ever written are nearly ALWAYS on different pages- but when they agree on a contract they have agreed on specific legal wording which RULES the future regulation of their dealings over their initial DESIRES- that is INDEED ESSENCE OF A CONTRACT.
On a less serious note, if your home builder and you can agree on certain things then sign off on the agreement only to have him try to improperly “interpret” the English language n order to change the deal- then he is in violation of the contract…the words rule- else the contract means NOTHING (and if that’s the case then Padilla V Bush is IRRELEVANT- Padilla was convicted…public was good served- Bush interpreted his war powers differently than you do- thus you have no complaints whatsoever -his “interpretation” is just as valid as yours- after all the founders disagreed on many things….see my point?
-
On the 2nd Amendment – the need for the militia is a basis for the thought- the actual rule is not AT ALL VAGUE- its states ”The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed”. I may concur that we now have weapons they did not forsee (though assault rifles would not be an issue even in the explanation as you don’t defend your country with inferior arms that the enemy would have). In any event The “fix” for this is an amendment since the rule is clear.
I wont even get started on the first amendment which the left interprets to “mean” THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what it SAYS.
Anyway, a true conservative stands for the rule of law according to the Constitution- I am always confused when an intelligent and learned peroson derides “right wingers” as somehow for infringing on actual constitutional rights- we dislike leftists because they stand for the opposite- The constitution “Says what I want it to say” that is assinine …and to address the issue most moderates have- Bush is no conservative….and a poor president to boot….not as bad as your average leftist, but the same in most ways other than his stance on abortion and war.
Good luck on your dissertation, you seem a learned person from what little I have read.
-
...the people are not powerless against those that govern them. Someone wisely thought that a government should be more afraid of its people than the other way around. It's sort of the last defense against tyranny. That being said it's still way too easy for any nutjob who wants a gun to get one so I'm for as much gun control as possible without infringing on the right to have them.
-
why did you leave out the first part of the sentence?A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it is the well regulated militia part that causes the most debate
-
That's correct- we see the results of weaponless civilians in Africa.
-
Good and valid question
I leave out the first part of the second amendment because it grammatically serves to do nothing except give the thought process to that amendment. It clearly does not give qualifying instances that would limit the right, nor does it say anything that at all impacts the right.
The militia phrase is also clearly not the subject of the sentence –therefore when combined with the above-it has no legal impact on the right whatsoever. (It does not for instance have a comment regarding what happens should we deem a militia unnecessary – that position would require an amendment to clarify this one).
To cut to the point directly- The arguments regarding the militia phrase all basically rely on either the false premise that that the militia phrase says something that qualifies the rest (it clearly does not have any language to that effect- this is simply a logical false), or that the militia phrase is the subject of the sentence- and this is simply grammatically 100% false- there actually is no debate regarding that fact if one understands basic sentence structure. The subject is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”,” not “A well regulated militia” You can ascertain this simply because if you remove “A well regulated Militia” you still have a complete sentence. If you remove “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” you do not have a complete sentence.
This can also be ascertained by more wordy sentence structure evaluation or simply by deduction about the document in which the amendment lies- the Bill of Rights is not talking about the Federal governments rights (including to create a militia)- it is about the peoples rights and the federal governments RESTRICTIONS.
In any event -The subject is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the predicate is that these rights “shall not be infringed”. (Not “a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state” + “shall not be infringed”)
Since the amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It is grammatically clear (and really not that complex a sentence thiugh it is written a bit differently than we speak now). The founders at most left an argument to debate the future modification of the amendment should a well regulated militia be deemed unnecessary to the security of a free state. (and we should note that many of the founders deemed that “security” to be against INTERNAL as well as external tyrants - so an army does not mean that is the case). IN any event- that stance would require what all changes to the constitution do…. another amendment updating this one and that following the rules of the amendment process as spelled out in the Constitution itself- what is CERTAIN is that it is NOT the role of the unelected Supreme court to Change what the constitution clearly states- indeed as I have mentioned that is itself the HEIGHT of Unconstitutionality on 3 levels.
Sorry for the wordy reply…I won’t even get started on the First amendment which has been abused In a FAR worse fashion.
-
I loved this series. My favorite part was when Jefferson smacked Hamilton down on the issue of central banks, even implying where it might eventually lead (civil war). These days, all of our politicians pretty much agree on everything and it's almost always the wrong side to take. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are for big, centralized government. The more power they grab, the worse things get. And anyone who talks about the constitution (Ron Paul) gets completely marginalized by the media. It's no wonder we're circling the toilet.
Comparing our founding fathers against Hillary, McCain or Obama, I don't know how anyone can still defend the public school system. Were we really doing such a bad job back then? The current field of candidates are precisely the mindless automatons that public schools were designed to churn out? And if you think the last 8 years was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Our economic troubles have barely begun.
-
I wish I didn't agree with your entire post....but I do....and it's a sad thing.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts