Posted on 05/26/2005 4:46:34 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
The place is England, the year is 1066. The Norman prince William had just settled the question of English succession through military force, and had become William I, King of England.
William, of course, did not grow up in England, and did not speak Anglo-Saxon, but rather French, a version referred to now as Low French. Low French became the language of the court. It, however, didn't become the language of the land. The people continued to speak Anglo-Saxon, and were thus separated from their leadership through a language barrier.
Over time, people picked up a word of French here and there, and it worked into the language, and the Court picked up Anglo-Saxon, and a sort of new language began to emerge, English. It didn't have all of the trappings of today, indeed Low English would be in many aspects unrecognizable by most folks who would attempt to read it today. Continued seeding of words by the French-speaking English nobility further enhanced (or corrupted?) the language into Middle English, the real merger of the Court toungue and that of its subjects. Middle English, the language of the British middle ages, was as different from French as say, Norwegian, but at least the leaders and the led could reasonably communicate without the need of intermediaries.
Along with the continued movement of the English language began a movement of the English people, in the creation of the greatest Empire the world has ever known. One of the places settled was a strange and forbidding land that became known as America.
Eventually, the Court of England saw fit to assert control over the lands settled by the English people in America. Those in America saw this, but didn't understand their strange language--providing taxes to a government in which they didn't participate? Having to quarter troops without being asked? Seeing officials appointed without any review or input?
Unlike William, however, the inhabitants of America successfully asked the interlopers to leave, thus allowing the governance of the land to those who lived there.
These governors, over time, saw fit to establish a contract between themselves and those they led, thus establishing the notion the governed did so at the mercy and pleasure of those so ruled. The rules of this Government were to be laid out in the toungue of the land so that all who read the guidance would be able to clearly understand.
One of these rules, located in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of this document, commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States ("America") provided certain powers to the Chief Executive and read thus:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Of particular interest are the words provided by these authors relating to nominations:
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,....
Thus in the English of the day, the late 18th century, was established the notion the Chief Executive would nominate Judges. No other body in the Government, according to the public contract, could perform the function. The Senate would provide advice and consent on those nominations. In other words, it would deliberate and vote. Very clear, and easily understood by the people of the time.
Two hundred years later, a new language is being proposed by the leaders, particularly those located in the Senate, that body that will "advise and consent" upon the nominations of the Chief Executive, the President.
Senators, at least 14 of them, have decided that "advice" occurs before the nomination, and is an essential part of the "advice and consent" process. In analyzing the new toungue of leadership, it becomes apparent that logic is not a key component of that language. For Senators are free to provide all the advice they wish, and often they do, to the President at any time they desire on any topic they choose. This would include potential nominations.
That, however, is NOT the "advice and consent" discussed in the contract with the people, it is run-of-the-mill horsetrading. Some Senators, in their new language of the Court, have decided, however, the contract with the people codifies this horsetrading within the "advice and consent" role.
Again, another indicator that logic is not exactly a key component of the new language of the Court (Senate).
For this to be so, there would be times when pre-nomination language would be within the "advice and consent" role, and there would be times when it wouldn't. And how could you tell? It's entirely possible that George Orwell couldn't sort that one out.
Certainly the drafters of the Government's contract with the people couldn't have figured it out, so it stands to reason that isn't the meaning of the clause. Clearly there has to be something upon which to advise and consent. Until a nomination is actually made, there cannot be advice, or consent, as nothing exists. Except in the new language of the Senate.
So, it appears that Senators are free to advise and consent officially, advise and consent unofficially, advise and consent maybe, or advice and consent not at all. The people of the land, however, haven't a clue as to what this new language of the leaders mean; the Senate speaks in strange toungues the likes of which were the case with the Norman conquerors.
The Norman conquerors liked the situation they had, it allowed to keep the masses ignorant. It could be that Senators like their new language for the same reason.
Like the Norman's that preceded them, the American Senators have adopted a language that belies understanding by the people who are governed.
Like the Norman's that preceded them, they will be forced to eventually adopt a tougue that can be understood by the masses.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
McCain is delusional if he thinks he can win the Iowa Caucuses. Our caucuses are dominated by the religious right.
Statewide Christian and Family organizations have been slamming Johnny Boy for the last 48 hrs. My email box has been loaded with messages from them AGAINST McLame.
He can't possibliy be so ignorant or so arrogant, as to think he can win here.
The stories I've been reading indicate McLame will SKIP Iowa entirely, because he knows he can't win here. Where are you picking up this information Tator?
I was going to comment on the Norman/French influence on English, but then I found this website: A History of the English Language
Here's an excerpt that's relevant to your comments:
The influence of the Normans can be illustrated by looking at two words, beef and cow. Beef, commonly eaten by the aristocracy, derives from the Anglo-Norman, while the Anglo-Saxon commoners, who tended the cattle, retained the Germanic cow. Many legal terms, such as indict, jury, and verdict have Anglo-Norman roots because the Normans ran the courts. This split, where words commonly used by the aristocracy have Romantic roots and words frequently used by the Anglo-Saxon commoners have Germanic roots, can be seen in many instances.And check this out: The Lord's Prayer in Old English (ca 1000)Sometimes French words replaced Old English words; crime replaced firen and uncle replaced eam. Other times, French and Old English components combined to form a new word, as the French gentle and the Germanic man formed gentleman. Other times, two different words with roughly the same meaning survive into modern English. Thus we have the Germanic doom and the French judgment, or wish and desire.
A lot of people refer to King James English and Shakespeare as examples of Old English, but that's early Modern English. Old English predates Shakespeare by well over 600 years.
OK, this geeky linguist is done for the day. Don't miss the fun at the thread about the Tennessee lawmakers who got cuffed. Harold Ford announces his plans to seek Frist's senate seat and the next day his goofy uncle gets arrested for bribery AND extortion. LOL!
That's interesting. Thanks for the links.
Sounds more German or Pa Dutch to me.
It should--Old English is more related to German than Latin.
I assumed as much it was easier for me to learn German than Spanish.
I watched George Allen then went shoe shopping!
Debri bin gets delivered first thing tomorry morning so today is MY day off...lol. Fabulous sales (Memorial Day) so I bought 3 pair. :)
Completely understandable!
So you have three boxes of shoes to add to the move..:-)
Dog--go to the thread in #129. It's a hoot! (Not really trying for shameless self-plug--the comments of others are hillarious!)
FOTFL! Yes, plus two white jackets, 4 pair of jeans (this moving/packing) made me drop another size and I went ahead and bought some cotton blouses too.
Are you watching C-SPAN? That Voinovich is slamming the heck out of Bolton.
Let me see if I can postulate what McCain and Graham must have known going in for what you say to be true.
They must have sat down and reasoned as follows. Lets get 5 other Republicans to make a deal with the Democrats. That will ensure that the religious right will do what ever it takes to keep us from getting the Republican nomination. And lets do it so every elected Republican from school board member to president gets inundated with email, mail, and phone calls trashing us and Republicans in general. That will ensure that all the elected Republicans will oppose us, in order to not go down in defeat with us.
On top of that we can earn the undying anger of the President, and most of the elected republicans in Washington and every state capital. If we make a deal with the Democrats we can insure that at least 200 House members and Republican state party officials will do all they can to see that we are never get the nomination...
Is that the thought process they envisioned? If they knew it would blow the religious right, they had to know it was a disaster. Could they have known what was to come and still have done what they did?
I think McCain like Kerry and much of Washington believes that as "so goes the media so goes the nation." We know it is a fallacy ... but they don't.
I think they believed the media would be with them. And the media would convince the voting public that they were great public servants working to overcome the great obstacles that are holding our nation back. I think McCain and Graham believed that as a result of this magnificent example of negotiating skills and statesmanship that every newspaper and TV station in Iowa and the USA for that matter, would hold them up as the great American heros of the Senate. That this great act of statesmanship would overcome the image that doomed McCain in Iowa in 2000.
I think they believed the grass roots once aware of their great accomplishment would rise up to demand that they be awarded the Republican nomination in 2008. That this time they would be recognized as the heros they so richly deserve to be. They had to believe that making a deal with the Democrats to get some nominees confirmed was a great idea that would pay political benefits in 2006.
I don't know what their motivation and prediction of the results could have been other than the second scenario. If they believed the second scenario they believed they could win both Iowa and South Carolina.
If they believed even a portion of the first scenario they would never have done what they did.
As far as rumors of states not to be contested...? They are just that rumors. And like Mark Twain said, "Rumors of my death are greatly exagerated." No one makes a real decision this far out about Iowa, New Hampshire or anywhere else. McCain knew he could not beat Bush in Iowa in 2000. McCain decided he could win New Hampshire. He wanted to win it big. And if Kerry challenges Hillary, there will be no cross over Democrats voting for McCain in 2008 primaries.
McCain does not even know who his competition in Iowa will be in 2008. Only when candidates know the nature of the opposition do they decide which states to contest.
Moving is stressful I'll say....:-)
Jemian, how're you doing? And your book??
About an hour ago...the clouds were very unusual in their appearance & form...something to do with upper level winds, I guess, but I found them fascinating to the point I almost hit the car ahead of me!
I'm listening to the Mansions of the Lord....very haunting song.
It sure is....is the Bolton vote postponed til tomorrow??
Not sure....I don't have it on....I'm follwing the live thread ...better for my BP.
okay...6 p.m. cloture vote tonite, then final vote...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.