Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 13 - Jul 18
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
uppababy cruz v2 car seat UPPAbaby VISTA V2 + MESA MAX Travel SystemVista V2. With Mesa V2. The VISTA V2s intuitive design allows for multiple configurations, making transporting a second and third child a breeze all while strolling like a single. The included MESA MESA MAX infant car seat attaches directly to the VISTA delivering a Performance Travel System that is the ultimate in portability and safety. No need to sacrifice performance for convenience. Whether you always roll with neutrals or prefer a pop of color,
Vista V2. With Mesa V2.
The VISTA V2’s intuitive design allows for multiple configurations, making transporting a second and third child a breeze — all while strolling like a single. The included MESA MESA MAX infant car seat attaches directly to the VISTA delivering a Performance Travel System that is the ultimate in portability and safety. No need to sacrifice performance for convenience.
Whether you always roll with neutrals or prefer a pop of color, there’s a VISTA V2 to fit your style. Choose from a wide range of colors, including new innovative textile options with stylish REACH-certified leather accents. Don’t let the latest refinements fool you though – these VISTAs are the same hardworking strollers parents love, only a dash more sleek.
Vista V2 Updates
- NEW Colors! Fashions feature color blocking, texture and standout shades.
- More Comfort for Growing Toddlers: A higher back and deeper footrest on the toddler seat provide added comfort for growing children.
- More Sun Protection and Ventilation: Extended canopy on toddler seat include zip out fabric for even more shade and open a mesh peek-a-boo window. A second flap in the front of the canopy can be opened for additional ventilation.
- Hassle-Free Harness: The no-rethread harness adjusts in a singular motion for added ease while providing a precise fit for growing babies.
- Improved All-Wheel Suspension: Enjoy a softer ride pushing one child (or three!) over any ground surface thanks to a new spring-action, all-wheel suspension and softer tires. Green indicators provide a visual signal when the wheels are locked and unlocked
- Storage Basket: Sleeker design and now has storage pockets for keeping accessories like your rain shield or car seat adapters easily accessible.
- UPPAbaby logo is now embedded on a leather tab attached on the canopy.
Frame/Seat Features
- Includes both Bassinet and Toddler Seat – completely interchangeable and requires no fabric swapping
- Performance Travel System with the included MESA MAX Infant Car Seat– direct attachment, no adapters necessary.
- Allows you to transport up to 3 children without growing wider with RumbleSeat and PiggyBack Board (sold separately)
- Expandable seat selections that allow for two rear and forward facing seats; reclining toddler seats, two Mesa infant car seats, two bassinets, and countless other combinations
- Genuine leather handlebar/bumper bar covers on all VISTA colors. Full grain cow hide leather available in brown and black color. It's REACH certified with no chemicals used in the tanning process. The handlebars are hand stitched onto stroller and will get darker and softer over time. It's also replaceable if it gets ruined.
- Frame combines aluminum with magnesium for optimal lightweight and durable performance
- Carbon frame is powder coated, it's matte and less susceptible to scratching
- Full size reversible toddler seat
- One-handed, multi-position recline
- 5-point no-rethread adjustable harness
- UPF 50+ sunshade with a soft, wrinkle-resistant material
- Extended canopy on toddler seat include zip out fabric for even more shade
- Height adjustable canopy to accommodate growing children
- Canopy locks to keep it in place when you slide it up and down
- Mesh peek-a-boo window in canopy extension
- Flap in the front of the canopy can be opened for ventilation
- Shock-absorbing front & rear suspension
- Solid polyurethane tires for that classic effortless push
- Smooth rolling 'no-flat' foam and rubber wheels
- One-step fold, with or without seat attached
- Stands on its own when folded
- Lockable front swivel wheels
- Rear wheel brakes
- One-button telescoping handlebar
- One-hand release, pivoting bumper bar for easy loading
- An easy to clean, single piece bumper bar
- X-Large easy-access basket with 30 lb. weight limit
- Fabrics are removable and washable
- All-weather protection with included Toddler Seat Rain Shield and Bug Shield
Bassinet Features
- Large sleeping area
- Zip-out, water-repellant inner liner and boot cover are easy to remove and clean keeping baby’s sleeping surface dry and comfortable
- The back of the Bassinet canopy unzips for additional airflow, and the pop-out sunshade shields your child from harmful UV rays, keeping baby cool and comfortable
- The perforated mattress pad and vented base allow for added breathability creating a truly comfortable and safe resting space for your baby
- Depth and ventilation provide a safe overnight sleeping solution
- Snaps into the Bassinet Stand for a secure and elevated fixture for baby to rest easy (sold separately)
- Includes Bassinet Bug Shield and Storage Bag
MESA MAX
-
Robust infant insert designed to provide better fit and body positioning for babies approximately 4–11 lbs
-
4th anti-rebound handle position for increased safety in rebound and rear-impact collisions when installing without the base
-
European Routing for a more secure installation when installing without the base
-
Side ventilation for airflow
-
Belt path easily holds harness straps out of the way
-
Direct attachment to VISTA and CRUZ strollers; convenient adapters available for the MINU and RIDGE strollers
-
Carry handle with stroller release button
-
All fashions are Fire Retardant Free through our DUALTECH and PURETECH fabrics
- GREENGUARD® GOLD Certified to support healthier air quality and low chemical emissions
MESA MAX BASE
- Included base with load leg for additional stability and energy absorption
- Anti-rebound+ panel for increased safety in rebound and rear-impact collisions
- SMARTSecure® System with red-to-green visual indicator installs in seconds
- Built-in lock off for secure seatbelt installation
- Bubble level indicators on both sides to aid in getting correct angle during installation
- Streamlined, low-profile base with finished bottom
- Four-position adjustable foot to accommodate various car seat angles
Specifications
- VISTA V2
- Open dimensions: 36”L x 25.7”W x 39.5”H
- Folded with seat attached: 17.3”L x 25.7”W x 33.3”H
- Folded without seat attached: 13″ L x 25.7″ W x 32″ H
- Weight of Frame + Seat: 27 lbs
- Weight of Frame: 20 lbs
- Weight of Seat: 7 lbs
- Weight of Bassinet: 8.8 lbs
- Bassinet suitable for infants up to 20 lbs, and 25" long
- Toddler Seat suitable from 3 months to 50 lbs
- MESA MAX
- Approximately 0–1 years
- Suitable from 4–35 lbs, or up to 32″ in height, whichever comes first
- Included infant insert suitable from 4–11 lbs
- Car Seat dimensions: 17″W x 25.8″L x 23″H
- Car Seat on base dimensions: 17″W x 28″L x 25″H
- Car Seat base-only dimensions: 14.5″W x 21.3″L x 10.3″H
- True weight:
- Car Seat 9.9 lbs
- Base 12.6 lbs
What's Included: Frame + Basket, Wheels, Bassinet, Bassinet Bug Shield, Bassinet Storage Bag, Toddler Seat + Canopy, Toddler Seat Rain Shield, Toddler Seat Bug Shield, Bumper Bar, MESA MAX Infant car seat, car seat base and infant insert.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.8 ★★★★★
Based on 934 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18):
1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue.
2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems.
3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders.
Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on.
The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them.
Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said:
"The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801).
The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean.
Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445).
Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution".
Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same.
Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought.
But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0.
Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law.
Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014