It should be clear that neither a one-state nor a two-state solution can work for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Palestinians are divided, and lack the capacity to effectively govern their areas of responsibility. However, they do show some capacity to govern at the city level.

Perhaps the best option is an eleven-state solution: Israel would be one. The others would be Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah, East Jerusalem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, and Bethlehem.

Israel would formally declare war on each, and separately negotiate peace treaties with each, establishing their boundaries and governments. The Palestinians would get the the territories occupied by those cities together with a surrounding buffer area around each, suitable for building, to allow for expansion. Israel would get all the territory in between, which would include all their settlements, and a strip along the border with Jordan.

The Palestinian city-states would be encouraged to unite in a federal union which could represent it in the United Nations, but it would initially not have much power at the local level. Over time that might change, and boundaries might be adjusted.

This will not satisfy Palestinian aspirations, but it reflects the reality on the ground, which is the only thing that can be the basis for a lasting solution.

The following letter was submitted to the Israeli newspaper, haaretz.com :

It should be clear that neither a one-state nor a two-state solution can work for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Palestinians are divided, and lack the capacity to effectively govern their areas of responsibility. However, they do show some capacity to govern at the city level.

Perhaps the best option is an eleven-state solution: Israel would be one. The others would be Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah, East Jerusalem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, and Bethlehem.

Israel would formally declare war on each, and separately negotiate peace treaties with each, establishing their boundaries and governments. The Palestinians would get the the territories occupied by those cities together with a surrounding buffer area around each, suitable for building, to allow for expansion. Israel would get all the territory in between, which would include all their settlements, and a strip along the border with Jordan.

The Palestinian city-states would be encouraged to unite in a federal union which could represent it in the United Nations, but it would initially not have much power at the local level. Over time that might change, and boundaries might be adjusted.

This will not satisfy Palestinian aspirations, but it reflects the reality on the ground, which is the only thing that can be the basis for a lasting solution.

Rob tends to interpret the language of the period as though it was written with more care and skill than if was. That doesn't work. A historian has little choice but to sometimes read between the lines and find structure and meanings that were not clear to the writers of that era. Exegesis is a subtle art, and it is not always easy to cross the line into eisegesis.

Correction. That link is http://amend-it.org

The failure, if it can be called that, was not so much of the Framers, who did the best they could under difficult circumstances, but of their immediate successors for failing to adopt clarifying amendments when court decisions started to drift away from original understanding, and that in part a failure of the founders to pass on that original understanding through legal commentaries. In particular, Jefferson was urged to write such expositions, but he felt it was sufficient to let John Taylor of Caroline do it. Taylor tried, but his analytic and expository ability fell short, as can be seen in his writings on http://constitution.org . Madison felt (inadvisedly in my opinion) that he was still bound by his oath of secrecy concerning the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention, so that he could not publish his Notes on it until after both he and all the other attendees were dead, which did not occur until 1840, after much of the deviation had become entrenched.

About the only remedy for what might be called scary decisis is constitutional amendments. The Bill of Rights were clarifying amendments, as were the Reconstruction Amendments, except for the $20 rule of the 7th and the enforcement powers of the 13th, 14th, and 15th.

The problem is to find ways to word amendments so they target and overturn the key bad decisions or opinions, and the departures based on them. Randy Barnett has tried to do that with a few broad amendments that I don't think have the needed focus. I have instead tried to formulate amendments that are more targeted. See http://amend-it.com . But it is not easy. The framers of the 14th tried to hammer out the wording that would overturn Barron v. Baltimore and Dred Scott v. Sanford, but with the benefit of hindsight we can see the shortcomings of their wording. I'd like to think my wording would work better, but it is difficult to anticipate every way one's words can be misconstrued. The only way to avoid that is to educate one's successors to know how to get the court decisions back on track if they drift away.

I have tried to provide everything anyone might need on http://constitution.org , but I cannot afford to continue that effort without more financial support. The entire site could go down within a month if I don't receive at least $2000 in donations soon.

In the U.S. people at least have protections in writing they can invoke. In the UK the only protections are customs and traditions that are not enshrined in writing. Of course, in both countries those protections are routinely ignored in many cases, but having it in writing makes it easier to rally others to your support.

As for these suspicious deaths, they should be investigated by independent forensic investigators. Unfortunately, technology now makes it all too easy to cause death in ways that seem natural. However, a motive for assassinating them also seems implausible, because there are undoubtedly too many others who can and likely will step forward and testify.

See http://constitution.org for more on many issues.

Although I tend to agree with Rob Natelson on most points, I have to disagree on the impact of Marshall's opinions, resulting from the ways he wrote them. He is correct about Marbury v. Madison, but not about McCulloch v. Maryland or Gibbons v. Ogden. He is making the case that subsequent readers are misconstruing Marshall, but a jurist is responsible for what people take from his sloppy writing, even if it is not what he intended. He furnished generations of sophist lawyers language they could twist, in ways he could have anticipated. It was not that he did not receive counterarguments that could guide the ways he wrote the opinions. His lack of caution in that is clearly willful and damaging. For more see my commentary on those cases at constitution.org and at constitutionalism.blogspot.com

Repealing the 17th Amendment is not a good idea. It was adopted for a good reason. Study the history of it. http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/04/dont-repeal-17th-amendment.html

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, along with other documents, is at http://constitution.org/rf/vr.htm

But note that Jefferson was calling generally for non-cooperation, without putting any resources behind it, or establishing any procedures for identifying what needs to be resisted and how.

It is not acquiescence that is the issue but non-cooperation. The opposition needs some cooperation, even if it is only from a jury. Acquiescence is convicting the resisters. Non-cooperation is acquitting them. When they can't impanel a jury that will convict we have nullification.

The social contract is what initially creates society. It is a mutual defense of rights pact. It is not something that changes thereafter. Especially not to add some "right" to entitlements. They are called entitlements to distinguish them from rights.