actors that played Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington all upstaged Giamatti's Adams. But its been a solid mini-series.

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.

McCullough's book provides a description of the scene which is somewhat more nuanced than that of the British press.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

“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.

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?

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.

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.