No, I seemed to think that Obama’s remarks were not in any way in his jurisdiction. Just because even the President of the United States says something, somewhere that has relevance to a case before one’s court doesn’t mean it’s one’s business as a judge. It’s not like they were part of a Justice Department filing in the case.
So while there was a connection to the case, Justice Smith’s comments were, for all legal purposes as best as I can tell, out of the blue.
I think his point was that if it wasn’t specifically enumerated then it shouldn’t be permitted (by the 10th amendment, bar another amendment). There can be state air forces, but not federal ones.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, it’s right in there. If someone wants to argue that this excludes the Air Force, have at it. Maybe there’s a good argument, though I don’t think so. But the point is that raising an Air Force is not something created out of whole cloth. I am a constructionist, and I acknowledge that the words still require some level of interpretation (e.g., what is cruel and unusual punishment?, since it’s not spelled out). But we start with the words in the Constitution. So, as a silly example, if someone says that power gives Congress the right to ban drugs, because a drug-free youth is important to feed the military, we should rightly be offended by that conclusion. The legal term for this is “making shit up.”
You may disagree, but for example, “For public use” ought not to be interpreted as “not for public use”; regulating interstate commerce ought not to mean creating commerce that can then be regulated.
Honorable people can come to different conclusions, but they ought to start with the words. And it is extremely annoying, on both sides, to call any ruling that strikes down a law “judicial activism.” It’s only that when they pull the logic out of their learned asses, having received advice from a nearby penumbra lurking in a shadow to ignore the words, that they are usurping the legislature’s role. And they should have about zero opinion on a law’s wisdom or effectiveness. Their only concern is whether or not the Constitution permits it.
Obama’s comments were idiotic, even more so because he is a constitutional scholar. He is pandering, creating his talking points if the law is overturned. Big deal. Both sides do it.
Nope. * Younger than Yesterday,* and Dylan wrote it. The song title is “My Back Pages.”
Political threads are so contentious!
It’s the fog of war. Or the fog of something!
Well, Luci was obviously trying to cover up the dissemination of communist propaganda through popular music by radical Jewish songwriters. I just couldn’t let him get away with it. 
Beat you to it back at post 39! 
FWIW, though a lot of bands and artists have covered Dylan songs, I doubt that any band owes a greater portion of its fame to Dylan covers than the Byrds. Their breakthrough hit was a cover of Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man,” and besides that and the aforementioned “My Back Pages,” they also covered “All I Really Want to Do,” “Chimes of Freedom,” “The Times, They Are A-Changin,” “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue,” “Spanish Harlem Incident,” and “Lay, Lady, Lay” that I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure a trip through their discography would turn up a few more Dylan covers, but I’m too lazy right this minute.
Really, to be honest, I’m just bitter that he will never have the importance and influence of Ted Nougat.
Whose influence, in turn, pales before that of Chocolate Nougat.