589th ENGINEER BATTALION (CONSTRUCTION)ENGINEERS AT WAR IN VIETNAM: An Operational Summary 1967 - 1971. The 589th Engineer Battalion (Construction) provided construction support for the U.S. Military in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from April 1967 until April 1971. Elements of the Battalion operated in the area from Qui Nhon to Pleiku from the Battalion's arrival in Vietnam until July 1968, as well as from the Phan Rang Air Force Base west towards Dalat, north towards Cam Ranh, and south towards Vinh Hao, from July 1968 until April 1971. A number of its construction projects are still in use by the Vietnamese today, including National Highway 19 between Qui Nhon and Pleiku, National Highway 27 (formerly QL-11) between Phan Rang and Dalat, and National Highway 1 from Phan Rang to Vinh Hao. This synopsis of the 589th Engineer Battalion's quarterly "Operational Reports - Lessons Learned" (ORLLs) and information from other historic sources has been created to provide a feel for the daily life and challenges of an engineer unit in Vietnam.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim—“distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal—good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the “strict constructionism” that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly “smuggle” in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals. This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia’s ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics. Featuring a new foreword that discusses Scalia’s impact, jurisprudence, and legacy, this witty and trenchant exchange illuminates the brilliance of one of the most influential legal minds of our time.

Describes how some of the decade's most important legislation made its way through Congress.