tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2520374452529181754..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: "Getting Back to the Constitution": The Truth Part 3Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39617121852361910142012-10-09T16:33:07.368-06:002012-10-09T16:33:07.368-06:00Cool. After all this, Joe better get to work.Cool. After all this, Joe better get to work.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52437846062549870062012-10-09T10:09:44.142-06:002012-10-09T10:09:44.142-06:00...grounds to impeach the entire thesis.
I've...<i>...grounds to impeach the entire thesis.</i><br /><br />I've made no attempt to comment on the thesis" to this point other than at the first posting of the series at which point I pointed out the author's obvious bias. A bias acknowledged by Joe and highlighted in the review of Amos' work that was brought up in an earlier post comments by yourself ("debater's manual" for fellow Christians. See here: http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/08/gary-amos-christian-principles-and.html).<br /><br />What I emphasize above, in my starting with Aquinas comment, is not a direct comment on the thesis but does point out what I feel is a critical consideration; the preferential selection of a starting point and exclusion of other competing early and contemporaneous sources and hypotheses not supportive of Amos' thesis.<br /><br />These considerations are not quibbles.<br /><br />I'll read the link that you've put up and probably will find it interesting. Of course, I find Amos' thesis interesting but flawed. I'll follow what's presented and, like you suggest, let the man speak, and at some point I'll offer a comment or two on the substance if I have anything to add. jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34586692653487903492012-10-09T03:26:17.743-06:002012-10-09T03:26:17.743-06:00It's not key to his overall thesis. Note the ...It's not key to his overall thesis. Note the punted factoid, move on to the big picture. Otherwise the main discussion is derailed with quibbles.<br /><br />It's been my observation that when the reviewer is congenial to the thesis, errors are noted in passing; when the reviewer is hostile, errors become grounds to impeach the entire thesis.<br /><br />You may find this interesting, lefty reviews lefty. There hardly seems a brick left standing by the time he's done, but you wouldn't know it by the tone.<br /><br />http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/aug/16/left-vs-liberals/?pagination=false<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52998056502762807282012-10-08T16:41:00.339-06:002012-10-08T16:41:00.339-06:00TVD - But that's a yawn, the adversarial appro...TVD - <i>But that's a yawn, the adversarial approach to truth. Proving someone wrong doesn't make you right.</i><br /><br />You call for principled argument. I asked for clarification not in an effort to win the culture wars but to bring about some clarity. If there was nothing happening in the 8th century regarding the point being made then we should get to that. Hyperbole does not lead to clarification or principled argumentation. If there was something of substance occurring then there was something new we could all learn.<br /><br />Do you agree?<br /><br /><br /><br />jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4166490294541973092012-10-08T16:10:09.487-06:002012-10-08T16:10:09.487-06:00JMS, That's the kind of talk that encourages m...JMS, That's the kind of talk that encourages me to think.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83634947910254185172012-10-08T16:01:20.741-06:002012-10-08T16:01:20.741-06:00Tom and Doug – great exchange! My own view of the ...Tom and Doug – great exchange! My own view of the relationship between the DoI and the USC comes from political scientist Donald Lutz’s article, The Declaration of Independence as Part of a National Compact.<br /><br />Lutz takes the “long view” of 150 years of constitution-making in the American colonies before 1776 or 1787, and concludes that:<br /><br />"The Declaration of Independence is an efficient, abstracted summary of the eighteenth-century American mind. Viewed in this context, the Declaration is not only an efficient summary of American political thought, but also a careful rhetorical balancing of contending views. The document could be read with approval by students of Whig political thought, or the Enlightenment; rationalists, or the deeply religious; those jealous of state power, or nationalists. Indeed, the manner in which state and national perspectives are balanced make this the first national document to lay out federalism as a central aspect of American political thought. The document also turns out to be part of a political covenant of the kind long used in America, and originally derived from covenant theology. Political covenants, called compacts in their secular form, would have had the Declaration serve as a preamble and bill of rights to a constitution. As it turns out, the Declaration of Independence serves precisely such a role with respect to the United States Constitution, and is thus part of a national covenant/compact."JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82505183617874624612012-10-06T17:47:48.139-06:002012-10-06T17:47:48.139-06:00I much enjoyed our discussion as well, and I appre...I much enjoyed our discussion as well, and I appreciate the invitation.<br /><br />I usually browse the posts and comments here and check the associated links to satisfy my interest and further my education. You've collected some smart, knowledgeable, interesting folks here--who know lots more about history than I do--so I seldom comment. Coals to Newcastle and all. Somewhere along the line, I came to realize that I generally learn more when listening to someone other than myself. <br /><br />When the subject turns to law, I figure I may have more to contribute.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70264415687953684012012-10-06T14:15:41.169-06:002012-10-06T14:15:41.169-06:00A very enjoyable exchange, Doug, and thank you--yo...A very enjoyable exchange, Doug, and thank you--your visits to the blog are always welcome and do feel free to submit a guest post anytime you've something relevant to religion and the Founding. Although I win every argument around here, losing viewpoints are always encouraged so I can kick them to the curb.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />To your point, I think the Constitution permits both a religious nation and an unreligious one, a conclusion my erstwhile blogbrother comes to in his excellent<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Secularism-Hunter-Baker/dp/1433506548<br /><br />In the end, I do argue the social utility of religion [and am obliged to since the existence of God can't be proved empirically, let alone "endowing" us with certain rights]: John Adams, a papist-hater and generally hostile to organized religion and its dogma, wrote that as bad as religion is, the world would be even worse without it. On that very modest premise I too proceed.<br /><br />And I do think we watch too much Law & Order. One can love the law, but without a vision, the people perish.<br /><br /><i>"The law no passion can disturb. 'Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. 'Tis mens sine affectu, written reason, retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but, without any regard to persons, commands that which is good and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. 'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. <br /><br />On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the populace."</i>---Adams, Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials (4 December 1770).<br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80522423992402689582012-10-06T13:44:55.693-06:002012-10-06T13:44:55.693-06:00I recognize that I have focused our discussion (or...I recognize that I have focused our discussion (or mine anyway) on the law. I do not claim that that is the only or the only important way to envision America or usefully discuss America. <br /><br />Lincoln was quite right, for instance, in speaking of "our fathers" bringing forth "a new nation" four score and seven years earlier, i.e., 1776 when the Declaration was signed. In important respects, that marked the beginning or, at least, a major turning point of a widespread and increasing (though hardly universal) sense of community and common cause then sweeping through the people of the colonies. In that sense, a new nation was born about that time. That idea, of course, is an entirely different thing than suggesting that a government was thereby formed as a legal entity. <br /><br />I gather that you see the latter as a smaller, perhaps less interesting or important matter. To my lawyer's mind, though, if the inquiry is what the Constitution means and what the law is, it is indeed an important matter, and the soft speak about birthing a new nation is less so. That does not mean that I only have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Rather, it means that when I'm actually looking at a nail, I use a hammer rather than a pillow.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72951053931021584112012-10-06T13:00:27.725-06:002012-10-06T13:00:27.725-06:00Again, we hamstring ourselves with Scalia's &q...Again, we hamstring ourselves with Scalia's "legal realism" approach, the irony being that liberal-left "living constitutionalism" also claims to read into the Constitution its philosophical and historical context.<br /><br />That the current state of 14th Amendment jurisprudence is a dishonest muddle doesn't mean we're stuck with it forever. ;-)<br /><br />[But look at us, speaking solely of the law <i>yet again</i>. When all you've got is hammer, everything looks like a nail. We watch so much Law & Order that "forescore and seven years ago" no longer holds any meaning.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75399922955145862282012-10-06T12:50:56.011-06:002012-10-06T12:50:56.011-06:00Tom,
I too have no problem with envisioning Ameri...Tom,<br /><br />I too have no problem with envisioning America in a philosophical or historical sense. Such concepts have their place and utility in discourse of various sorts. Certainly, "we" as a people can discuss and feel good (or not) about "our" "nation" "America" from the time of the Revolution or perhaps from the founding of one or more of the several colonies.<br /><br />That said, if and when one inquires what the Constitution means and thus what the law is, though, there is a need to focus on what law is about. In that inquiry, the rather free form historical or philosophical concepts are less pertinent or useful.<br /><br />With respect to the First Amendment constraining only the federal government and not the states, that is hardly in doubt. The Supreme Court has uniformly confirmed as much. Then came the 14th Amendment, which is another subject.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9734400852220702422012-10-06T11:31:01.689-06:002012-10-06T11:31:01.689-06:00but as I suggested before it is more of a philosop...<i> but as I suggested before it is more of a philosophical or historical concept than a legal one. </i><br /><br />Nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />Doug, you're the one--and the "Godless Constitution" crowd---thumping "law" as the only definition of The United States of America. I have no problem with the USA as a philosophical a an historical entity beyond just the Constitution.<br /><br />When Mr. Lincoln says "fourscore and seven years ago." that indeed dates to 1776, not 1787. That concept of America is [or at least was] a reality.<br /><br />Further, when it comes to religion and the Founding, federalism rules: the Constitution does not abolish the laws of the states, the First Amendment does not require Massachusetts to dis-establish Congregationalism as its legal and office <i>state church</i>. Religion was left to the states, not abolished!Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51777383007309360052012-10-06T11:21:31.854-06:002012-10-06T11:21:31.854-06:00Tom,
While there is disagreement among academicia...Tom,<br /><br />While there is disagreement among academicians, commentators, etc., about natural law and positive law and the Declaration's place in all that, the law (i.e., statutes, cases, and such) is largely settled about whether the Declaration does or does not have the force of law. It does not.<br /><br />To be sure, Congress did have the text of the Declaration reprinted in Volume 1 of the U.S. Code along with the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, and Constitution and honored them collectively with the label "organic laws," but that hardly affords the Declaration the force of law or otherwise renders it a "law" in the sense applied and enforced by courts. The Constitution carefully prescribes the process by which Congress, along with the President, can make a law, and simply placing text between the covers of a book is not how it is done. <br /><br />The Declaration certainly provides some context for interpreting the Constitution--as do the Revolutionary War, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Great Awakening, the disestablishment movement, the slave trade, the political rivalry between large and small states, and the like. The Supreme Court has (on a few occasions where the opportunity or need arose) referred to the Declaration for just that purpose. In all our history, the Court has never, though, applied the Declaration as a "law," "organic" or otherwise.<br /><br />There is a well established legal principle that a legislature cannot by law bind future legislatures to act or not act in particular ways. (This is not to say that a legislature may not, as a practical matter, put future legislatures in a bind by spending lots of money, starting wars, etc.) An analogous concept applies here. The people of the colonies in declaring their independence on July 4, 1776, did not and, indeed, could not bind the people of the future independent states, 12 years hence, to form a government conforming to any particular prescription. The independent people of 1787 were free to form any sort of government they chose, and they were not in the least bound to any idea expressed in the Declaration.<br /><br />I am intrigued by your appeal to a conception of "America" as a "nation" and not just a government that came into being sometime during the Revolution, perhaps with the Declaration of Independence, and thereafter existed as a distinct entity. Certainly there is something to this idea, but as I suggested before it is more of a philosophical or historical concept than a legal one. The law is more focused on the government of the "United States" and has more to say about that than it does about how to characterize the society or nation known as "America" at various points in history. <br /><br />Underlying your view of the Declaration's role appears to be the idea that it and the Constitution written twelve years later were drafted and adopted by one and the same people or entity (perhaps that unitary America you have in mind). That, of course, is simply not the case, at least not in the sense pertinent to law. While the documents and their preparers plainly are related as a matter of history, the people and institutions that prepared the two documents differed. Of the 56 or so delegates who participated in the Second Continental Congress, convened by the thirteen colonies, that drafted and adopted the Declaration of Independence, seven later participated in the Constitutional Convention, convened by the Confederation Congress representing the by then thirteen independent states, that drafted and adopted the Constitution. In this sense, it was the colonists and thirteen separate colonies that took up arms and cooperated to fight for their independence and issued a declaration in the process, and years later, after independence had been won, it was the free people of the thirteen independent states that formed a government of the United States.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31503012628398143062012-10-06T05:55:35.436-06:002012-10-06T05:55:35.436-06:00.
"The powers not delegated to the United Sta....<br />"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."<br />.<br />If we're going to dig into this question deeply, we should understand that TVD has made it quite clear that his bias is toward and in favor of the Christian Nation movement however subtle. <br />.<br />I think D.I. simplified the matter quite nicely.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90635024875061336212012-10-05T22:15:09.438-06:002012-10-05T22:15:09.438-06:00I agree there's disagreement--Justice Scalia a...I agree there's disagreement--Justice Scalia agrees with you:<br /><br /><i>Justice Scalia, very much the legal realist, does have quite a different view of this matter (Blackacre, April 22, 1997, p. 2):<br /><br />I don’t think the Declaration of Independence is part of our law. It was drafted before the federal government even existed. The Declaration of Independence, unlike the Constitution, unlike the Bill of Rights, is an aspirational document! That’s where you hear such wonderful stuff [about] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . .<br /><br /><br />The Declaration of Independence is aspirational. That’s something you inspire people with, it’s not something you go to a law court with.</i><br /><br />http://anastaplo.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/in-re-antonin-scalia/<br /><br />However, a) I reply that the 10th Amendment reserves ALL rights to the people and states respectively, including the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration.<br /><br />Further, as Anastaplo writes [follow the link!], that the Declaration was made part of the "organic laws" of the Unkted States.<br /><br />And further, my own point---that a nation, in this case America, is more than just its form of government. America was America from 1776, not 1787---just as France was France whether under King Louis, Robespierre, Napoleon or deGaulle.<br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37406731575666907822012-10-05T20:10:18.406-06:002012-10-05T20:10:18.406-06:00To the extent that one is interested in the legal,...To the extent that one is interested in the legal, rather than historical or philosophical, import of the Declaration of Independence, it bears recognizing that lawyers and judges go at this somewhat differently than do historians and philosophers. <br /><br />While some draw meaning from the references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, as the comments here suggest) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution and thus constitutional law, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated or limited or established the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose--or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished--or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated, in some measure at least, from religion.<br /><br />From a legal standpoint, the import of the Declaration is basically that it is a part of the historical context or background that serves to inform our understanding of what was intended by those who twelve years later drafted, adopted, and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is much different than supposing that one can assign meanings to parts of the Declaration and then transport that meaning to the Constitution and thereby give it the effect of law.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5072958666053124622012-10-04T15:58:50.759-06:002012-10-04T15:58:50.759-06:00You'll win the 8th century point, I reckon. B...You'll win the 8th century point, I reckon. But that's a yawn, the adversarial approach to truth. Proving someone wrong doesn't make you right.<br /><br />Your own argument is mere assertion as well. Regardless of your Argument from Authority [Steven Green], we don't play dueling scholars hereabouts.<br /><br />Point is that the classical-pagan tradition can't get your argument to unalienable natural rights and fundamental human equality, which are the foundation of the American way.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84241655643284644072012-10-03T15:45:40.039-06:002012-10-03T15:45:40.039-06:00I was hoping that reasoned argument would get back...I was hoping that reasoned argument would get back to me regarding what was happening in the 8th century with respect to interposition and the deposing of tyrants. Reasoned argument was busy so I took another tack.<br /><br />Besides, the idea that all ideas get filtered through Aquinas and the Church has already abandoned reason. And history.<br /><br />Of course, ridicule, mockery and satire have a long and honorable tradition so I take no offense at the slings and arrows and ughs of outrageous indignations.<br /><br />On a non-ridiculing note, I thought that Steven Green's essay was very well done and balanced and certainly touches on the point made by Jon regarding the founder/framer's unequivocal and direct use of classical Greek and Roman philosophy and political theory. <br /><br />jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84123149182543513322012-10-03T13:37:29.414-06:002012-10-03T13:37:29.414-06:00Ugh. What cannot be won by principled argument can...Ugh. What cannot be won by principled argument cannot be won by mockery.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3692831934287241352012-10-03T08:04:11.269-06:002012-10-03T08:04:11.269-06:00JMS,
It's easier if you just accept that the ...JMS,<br /><br />It's easier if you just accept that the history of ideas resulting in the founding start with Aquinas (via the miracle of subsumation*) and are then shaped into final form by the Reformation. The founders/framers merely provided dictation (especially, that lowly Jefferson).<br /><br />The history of ideas prior to Aquinas? See <i>the</i> Book. No, not Amos' book, <i>THE</i> Book. <br /><br />Review: Bible -> Aquinas -> angry, heretical, protesting Christians (Reformation)** -> DOI -> Constitution -> America -> today. <br /><br />*take that subsumed Cicero.<br /><br />**Birthplace of you're-not-the-boss-of-meism, freedom and democracy.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34393395083328159162012-10-02T15:23:16.074-06:002012-10-02T15:23:16.074-06:00Let the man speak.Let the man speak.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29389298527034782042012-10-02T12:07:37.599-06:002012-10-02T12:07:37.599-06:00This is my reply to Tom's comment of Sept 25h....This is my reply to Tom's comment of Sept 25h.<br /><br />Tom - AC commenters have been courteous to KoI. But, as far as "making his case" goes, why is a book from 1996 so ground-breaking? Who is Gary Amos, and what is Regent Law School (University)? Does he/it have any connection with Pat Robertson, or the defunct Oral Roberts U? Talk about a school (with a fairly poor reputation regarding the quality of its law graduates) and a scholarship niche that has a biased agenda. What is the “purposefulness behind the Creation nation myth”? Should we start discussing Reconstructionism or Dominionism?<br /><br />As Steven Green (whose work Jon Rowe knows about) concluded in his article, “Understanding the ‘Christian Nation’ Myth”: “The idea of America’s Christian founding persists because it is one of our chief founding myths. It declares that we are a special people and nation, that we have received God’s blessings but are also subject to his judgment when we fail in our endeavors. It sanctifies our origins, informs our national identity, and reminds us of our responsibilities. It is a powerful narrative, and it is particularly appealing to people who desire a greater religious presence in the public life of our nation. The myth also persists because it is sufficiently indefinite in its detail and finds plausible, though not convincing, support in the historical record. That is why this debate is unwinnable on a level that simply compares contrasting historical texts. The religious discourse of the founding period needs to be examined in its larger context, including an appreciation of the purposefulness behind the creation of the Christian nation myth.”<br /><br />http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147:understanding-the-qchristian-nationq-myth&catid=18:other-de-novo-articles&Itemid=20<br />JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78029194223937606422012-09-30T14:05:40.550-06:002012-09-30T14:05:40.550-06:00I am sorry for missing all the comments here... I ...I am sorry for missing all the comments here... I have to subscribe so they are sent to me via email.. <br /><br />Tom, <br /><br />Evidence is coming... <br /><br /><br />Jon,<br /><br />Great point and one of his weaker arguments IMO... With that stated, I do think he still makes some good points...<br /><br /><br />JMS,<br /><br />Fea makes a good point but I would retort that what they used to make their arguments is just as telling as why?Joe Winpisingerhttp://www.3rdwavelandsproperties.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84062249415557357752012-09-27T21:16:18.482-06:002012-09-27T21:16:18.482-06:00Especially in the arena of Interposition or what s...<i>Especially in the arena of Interposition or what some call the disposing of tyrants. A legal case that found a home in Christian thought for more than a thousand years before Jefferson and company used it. </i><br /><br />That would be about the 8th century. What was happening with interposition, deposing of tyrants, at that time?<br /><br />jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67385873929169875492012-09-25T16:08:45.558-06:002012-09-25T16:08:45.558-06:00Why not let Joe make his case first? That would b...Why not let Joe make his case first? That would be the point of all this, that maybe what we think we know ain't exactly so.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com