AA buying A320's

[tomgoodman]

As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended.

Wave,
I agree with much of your post, but here's the danger: Elastic documents can shrink as well as expand. Isn't it safer to use the amendment process instead of interpretation? Slower and more difficult, of course, but the framers intended that too.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Wave-
I'll bet Obama would love to have you publishing history text books. Only they would be found in the Fiction section.

 

[Skank]

Wave-
I'll bet Obama would love to have you publishing history text books. Only they would be found in the Fiction section.

Depending on your point of view, lots of history could be filed in the fiction section. Remember the "official" version of how the war in Vietnam Nam was going (written while the war was ongoing)?

 

[Mud Eagle]

Wow, that was the most thought out post in FI history. Well said.

Well thought out by it's authors at Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

 

[JFReservist]

Well thought out by it's authors at Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Wave... does your CP know you are moonlighting?

 

[waveflyer]

Wave,
I agree with much of your post, but here's the danger: Elastic documents can shrink as well as expand. Isn't it safer to use the amendment process instead of interpretation? Slower and more difficult, of course, but the framers intended that too.

First- guys.... Not that I couldn't write that- but I wouldn't do it for just FI-
After food for thought- put quotes- By Richard Stengall, latest issue of TIME. and this is only about 1/5 of it. It proceeds to examine 4 modern constitutional issues- Libya, Obamacare, debt ceiling, and immigration.
It leans further left than I would, but the overall point to this argument is good.
The constitution CREATED the central govt, and in doing so weakened states' rights.

Tom- define safer?
Look it's a good debate about the size and scope of the central govt- I'm just pointing out that nowhere in the constitution does it say that limited govt is an objective. And certainly, both parties and ALL viewpoints have proposed and even enacted laws that are unconstitutional. And the mechanism the founders created are te courts. I think its important to recognize all 3 equal branches and not just the one's convenient to the argument at hand.
It's not about "BIG" govt or "small" govt- it's about appropriate govt, and back to Zakaria's point: the govt that works in the world as it is, and not as it was or how we wish it would be. It's why I support a strong military even though as a liberal I truly wish we did not need to spend so much of our resources on it. To not would be naive however, and not recognize reality. Same with social issues, the right wants entitlements to be gone, saying that people ought to be responsible- well, people ought to be good and not WAR with us and each other- but they don't in reality- hence the military. (Never mind the gray area of HOW can people be responsible when regulations become so convoluted and anemic that millions can be duped by mortgage backed securities- ...)

So Tom- good question- but I think you're ignoring the fact that the courts were created to interpret laws. So it's a silly question as well. And as for amendments- what happens when constitutional amendments conflict with other parts of the constitution- as prop 8 does?

Now this has drifted WAY TOO FAR...
apologies.
Back to boeing v airbus- parts are outsourced - and we need competition, and if it weren't for airbus and airlines stateside who actually buy them Boeing would still be throwing rows of seats in tankers and calling them airliners- but when all the parts are made, the corporate structure and final manufacturing process is here and is a pride of the US- so I hope they get their act together and compete better.
Though I'm not sure globalized capitalism is ever pure of politics and we should protect our values and middle class.

 

[JFReservist]

Okay, I concede that the necessary and proper clause trumps everything, which is why Madison and his imperfect backwards arse hillbilly framer buddies immediately set out with (among other things):

"Amendment X

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."

- um, in all candor - again, I didn't come up with that. Its in that whole 'bill of rights" section in that there constitution thingy - but the emphasis is mine. Something about how the states, being sovereign entities, and their respective citizens, were best left deciding EVERYTHING that wasn't necessarily ceded to the (then brand new) federal government. If you think that for a second, these men were leaving the whole pot for the federal government to decide, you might want to read what Jay, Hamilton and Madison thought. They wrote a bunch of articles you know, even better than the one Wave wrote in Time. Maybe they realized they didn't know everything, and wouldn't imagine the federal government needing to be involved in what type of lightbulb or toilet I put in my house. You know, that whole soft, smiley faced tyranny thing.

And don't get me started on the true intent of Representatives and Senators (and the fate of individual state sovereignty being completely stripped by the the 17th Amendment), the Electoral College, and other crazy stupid ideas in a federation of sovereign republics.

Oh, and why not the C-Series (100ish seaters) and 737-800s for American v. the A320NEO?

 

[waveflyer]

"Sarcasm is the protest of the weak."- John Knowles

 

[tomgoodman]

Wave,

Courts review laws frequently, checking them for compliance with the Constitutional yardstick, but I was talking about the danger that arises if they decide, as TIME suggests, that the yardstick itself is "elastic".
In this context, I'd define "safer" as "less likely to allow Federal elected and appointed officials to substantially increase their control of States and citizens without extensive deliberation and informed consent by those States and citizens", (consistent with Amendment X). I resist the notion that courts may rule based upon what the Constitution should have said or what it would say if only the framers were as informed and as enlightened as we are. That's what the amendment process is for.
(I'm not well-informed about California Prop 8, but if it runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, the SC can strike it down. If it were a ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they could not.)

 

[C601]

Food for thought....

Based on the current order book for Airbus, AA would be looking at an 3 year wait from the time they ordered. At the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading conference in Jan, Boeing had stated they most likely where going to make a decision before the Paris Air show of what direction they where mostly likely going to go.

It was the same talk in March and in Paris last week, all signs where Boeing would not re-engine the 737-800/NG. It's very clear they need something new. Problem is your looking at least 5 years before they enter into service, and their are also funding issues.

AA buying A320s ? few years ago, no way. Today ? yes ...

As of right now, Boeing have nothing to offer with the CFM Leap-X Engine and the PW1100G PurePower from Pratt & Whitney.

Fact is A320 Neo will burn 16% less fuel burn per seat compared to Boeing’s winglet-equipped 737-800. No airline is going to ignore that, not even AA.