A Not So Modest Proposal.

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's simple. A tiny minority of us (but, I believe, a correct minority) firmly adhere to "strict construction" of the Constitution, meaning that the 10th Amendment means that only those powers explicitly granted the Federal Government are valid for the Feds to exercise.

However, since most of you disagree, allow me to offer this suggestion:

Let's put the most popular and established Federal programs to the test, and push for a Constitutional amendment to make their legality watertight.

Social Security, for instance. I might still think it best to implement drastic reforms (privatization or decentralization), but if the Constitution was amended to permit it, then I wouldn't make a legalistic argument against it. (And, yes, I have a pedantic mind, as well as a cynical and skeptical one, but what of it?)

Medicare, too, is a possibility. Though that's a dangerous door to open, since it might lead to socialized medicine. Oh, wait, if Obama wins, we're getting socialized medicine, anyway.

The EPA, too, I think, might be necessary.

Though I would still oppose the independent federal agencies, since they're unelected, unaccountable, and violate the separation of powers.

And I still think that Amtrak should be privatized. Just say no to state-run railways.

And the war on drugs is still wrong.

But since Social Security is not going anywhere soon, this may be the best solution. It would certainly shut me up on the legal issues. Though I'm still not keen on paying payroll taxes just so I can barely exist on a fixed income if I live that long (which I doubt, given my health issues).

Call me a pessimistic Constitutionalist these days, or just plain cynical.

Mind you, the Baby Boomers are likely to make this moot soon, anyway, by breaking the system. One can only hope.

 

[sr71plt]

Why in heaven's name would I want to do that? Our system of government has only lasted as long as it has because our founding documents are used with flexibility.

I'd hate to see the Constitutional base go the way of the Bible Old Testiment--too old to pass scrutiny by way of anything but selective pretense.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Why in heaven's name would I want to do that? Our system of government has only lasted as long as it has because our founding documents are used with flexibility.

I'd hate to see the Constitutional base go the way of the Bible Old Testiment--too old to pass scrutiny by way of anything but selective pretense.

I don't exactly see passages in the Constitution calling for genocide.

This "flexibility" can be flexible enough to allow for tyranny. That's a very slippery slope. Our rights are safer when set in stone, ironclad, with no bad precedents set by bad case laws and flawed appeals to "living documents".

There's nothing so archaic in the Constitution that can't be remedied the proper, legally certain way: the formal ratification process.

The Founders were smart enough to leave us a means to correct any mistakes they might have made. We insult them when we use creative license instead of the proper Constitutional protocol for revision.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't exactly see passages in the Constitution calling for genocide.

Neither do I. Nor did I equate the Consitution literally with the Bible (which seems to be a major problem around here--not being able to look beyond a ridiculous version of the chosen literal).

The comparison was the people under the Constitution with the adherents under the Old Testament Bible.

And, what, I add you to the list of those here who don't realize that we have had a couple of centuries of enacted legislation that has reinterpreted/redined/rehoned the wording and intent of the Constitution to keep up (more or less, if sometimes a little late) with the evolution of maturing society's needs and perceptions of right/wrong/justice?

Because, you know, that just would be a really, really blinders-on view of what has happened in the States over the last 200 years.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Neither do I. Nor did I equate the Consitution literally with the Bible (which seems to be a major problem around here--not being able to look beyond a ridiculous version of the chosen literal).

The comparison was the people under the Constitution with the adherents under the Old Testament Bible.

And, what, I add you to the list of those here who don't realize that we have had a couple of centuries of enacted legislation that has reinterpreted/redined/rehoned the wording and intent of the Constitution to keep up (more or less, if sometimes a little late) with the evolution of maturing society's needs and perceptions of right/wrong/justice?

Because, you know, that just would be a really, really blinders-on view of what has happened in the States over the last 200 years.

Hardly a blind view. Just because politicians ignore the clear reading of the Constitution for convenience doesn't mean that their invalid legislation changes the Constitution's meaning. I don't ignore what they've done. I denounce it. I consider it illegal. They should have used the formal ratification process. It worked for reforms of voting qualifications, not to mention abolition of slavery, the abolition of the poll tax, full U.S. citizenship extended to state level, and several other issues.

I'm also following precedent here. Presidents Madison and Monroe both vetoed internal improvement bills on the grounds that the Constitution didn't empower Congress to make such laws. They both also argued that the Constitution should be amended to allow for internal improvements, since they agreed with them in principle, but didn't believe that the Federal Government had the jurisdiction for it.

Yes, politicians have pushed legislation that have practically the role of the Federal Government. But that didn't make their laws Constitutionally valid. It just meant that they violated their oaths of office pursuant to the supreme law of the land.

The 10th Amendment renders any view but "strict constructionism" to be rather specious.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It always amazes me how staunch liberals can be about the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, except where states' rights and the separation of powers are concerned. Then, suddenly, they're "flexible".

Whereas some of us are consistent, at least. A handful of Libertarians and paleo-cons, at any rate.

 

[3113]

It always amazes me how staunch liberals can be about the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, except where states' rights and the separation of powers are concerned. Then, suddenly, they're "flexible".

It always amazes me how stupid and arrogant certain conservatives can be...oh, wait, am I generalizing? I am.

If you're going to lump together liberals and paint us all with one brush, Sev, you'd better be ready to be painted with one, too. And for the record, it seems to me of late that it's the conservatives that have been inconsistent. They scream "states rights!" until certain states start saying that homosexuals can marry--then suddenly they're "flexible" about wanting to limit state's rights. They scream "states rights" until certain states start to make marijuana legal, then suddenly they're "flexible" about wanting to limit state's rights. And they seem pretty darn flexible about the VP's powers if we're discussing "flexibility" of powers.

No liberal in the history of our country has been more "flexible" about blurring the separation of powers as the rigidly conservative Bush Administration. And don't even get me started on their "flexibility" in interpreting the constitution: the 7th Amendment ("no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process" (hm. no "person"--I think the conservatives have done that to a lot of persons of late), 8th Amendment--that's the one that says "in all criminal prosecutions the accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" or the tenth regarding cruel and unusual punishments (think that would have included waterboarding?)

But before you dig yourself any deeper with these really offensive generalizations (do you read what you write? Do you edit before you post? Do you want to insult those of us who you generally get along with by calling us hypocrites for no good reason?), I suggest you read up McCullen's book on John Adams. EVEN THEN back in the days of the founding fathers they were arguing about what States rights were and what Separation meant and what rights the president should have, etc. So even the guys that wrote the damn thing disagreed on what it all meant and made changes as they were put into power. So I don't think you can sit there and say, "I know exactly how it should go!" because if they didn't you sure as hell don't. When you get a degree in constitutional law, let me know. Maybe I'll be interested in what you have to say on the subject.

Final word: and if you're going to make accusations and assertions, please use specific examples. Saying that "liberals" are all for the bill of rights but "flexible" on states rights makes no sense at all. EXACTLY what the fuck do you mean? Which liberals? And which parts of the Bill of Rights? As the lawmakers are *allowed* to add more rights, why should we go back to the original and forget any new ones? Why would that be so good and wonderful?

Give me a particular example of a particular individual being for every article, as originally written in the bill of rights--and yet not for State's rights and separation of powers. Then we will discuss the merits or failures of that individual's opinion and, irrespective of their politics which don't fucking matter, decide if their position has any merit.

Otherwise, this is all nonsense. No specific examples mean that you've nothing but vague generalizations and unsubstantiated assertions. Which is worth zilch--unless you're insulting people.

 

[sr71plt]

Afraid I was lost at the phrase "clear reading of the Constitution," which, in reality, is a non sequitur.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh please, Sev. It's a poor workman who blames his tool.

And that's all the Constitution is, a tool. It can be used wisely, with an eye to the public good. Or as a tool of authoritarians. It has been used for both purposes.

'Fixing' the Constitution won't fix human nature. And this is where the real problem lies.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

I'm amazed anyone believes Bush is conservative. Conservatives dont believe it.

The Commerce Clause is the example you want. The federal government uses it whenever it wants to negate states' rights. I mean, if a school district accepts a food commodity from the Dept. of Agriculture for the school cafeteria, the liberal bureaucrats extend the scope of the commodity to include every aspect and facet and activity within the school system. That is, the libbies insist that the pork & beans be shared by illegals AND insist that illegals get every other benefit of a public education. The Commerce Clause is the skeleton key liberals use to unlock every states' right door.

 

[Liar]

Medicare, too, is a possibility. Though that's a dangerous door to open, since it might lead to socialized medicine.

A bit off topic, but anyway...

And bear in mind I'm not touting an opinion here, it's just a thing that irks me about setting premises for a discussion like that.

Dangerous why? Why is sozialized medicine so self-evidently bad that you feel you can use it as a rhethorical bogeyman?

Ideologically dangerous becuase it's leaning towards socialism? Or fiscally and pragmatically dangerous because it (according to you, but that's another discussion) doesn't work well?

 

[DesertPirate]

Gee, if we use Sevs idea that would eliminate the Dept of Education
I suspect in 40 of the 50 states that would be a great improvement within one generation. It would take 2 or 3 for the others.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Gee, if we use Sevs idea that would eliminate the Dept of Education
I suspect in 40 of the 50 states that would be a great improvemnt within one generation. It would take 2 or 3 for the others.

Yep.

 

[DesertPirate]

Yep.

I have to get a new keyboard

 

[cloudy]

Gee, if we use Sevs idea that would eliminate the Dept of Education
I suspect in 40 of the 50 states that would be a great improvement within one generation. It would take 2 or 3 for the others.

I disagree. All that would happen would be an awful lot of uneducated people, most of them poor.

 

[rgraham666]

And what, pray tell, does any body owe those lazy bastards, the poor?

Let 'em get jobs and claw their way to the top like our beloved President!

 

[DesertPirate]

I disagree. All that would happen would be an awful lot of uneducated people, most of them poor.

We might go back to actual teaching.
Back to the days when teachers had to major in the subject they taught.
Unlike having a degree in "education" and if the students are lucky, a minor in the subject being taught.

A degree in Education, the most worthless piece of paper in the country.
Requiring it was an excuse to build little fifedoms called Education departments/colleges at Universities.

 

[cloudy]

We might go back to actual teaching.
Back to the days when teachers had to major in the subject they taught.
Unlike having a degree in "education" and if the students are lucky, a minor in the subject being taught.

A degree in Education, the most worthless piece of paper in the country.
Requiring it was an excuse to build little fifedoms called Education departments/colleges at Universities.

Yeah, back to the good old days when the only people who got an education were privileged white people.



eta: I don't disagree that teachers should be better educated and better paid, but making education a privilege isn't going to do that, and you know it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

My chief quibble is with the choice of strict construction itself. I recognize the value of greater clarity and limitation of governmental powers, including taxation, but it seems awfully unlikely to me that a document created two hundred years ago could address every necessity and contingency that would later arise.

Indeed, the forefathers themselves included, as one of the chiefest powers of the citizenry, the ability through many methods to change the powers and nature of the government. That we have done so is itself an exercise of those very strictly constructed powers themselves. I'm not sure that one can really oppose those changes while upholding a strict construction - seems likely that one will collapse into a paradoxical singularity, no?

 

[cloudy]

My chief quibble is with the choice of strict construction itself. I recognize the value of greater clarity and limitation of governmental powers, including taxation, but it seems awfully unlikely to me that a document created two hundred years ago could address every necessity and contingency that would later arise.

Indeed, the forefathers themselves included, as one of the chiefest powers of the citizenry, the ability through many methods to change the powers and nature of the government. That we have done so is itself an exercise of those very strictly constructed powers themselves. I'm not sure that one can really oppose those changes while upholding a strict construction - seems likely that one will collapse into a paradoxical singularity, no?

Thank you. Exactly what I told Severus in another thread.

 

[amicus]

Like the 'true love of one's life'...if you believe such a thing to exist, the Constitution of the United States, along with the Declaration and the Bill of Rights, along with the Federalist Papers and a few other pamplets, signify an unique event in human history.

There are those of logical thought who see much of human history evolving to this statement about individual human existence and see it, properly, as self evident, or axiomatic, if you choose.

Although there were 'civil' societies long before, that missing tuning fork of resonance was absent until the essence of individual rights being superior to either god or country, was codified and expressed in plain language.

It is that essence and spirit of the Constitution that this radical wishes to preserve intact, that which acknowledges and protects the sovreignty of the individual and his right to exist independent of all else.

There are law libraries full of discussions, arguments and cases defining each clause of the Constititution and none of us here are constitutional lawyers capable or competent enough to even offer an opinion. What we can do however, as individuals, is to appreciate and support that unique and special difference that makes American's what we are and have been, the most free people in the history of man and the most successful.

While we of a previous generation grew up knowing what our freedom meant, there is a new generation and an entire world out there that hasn't a clue as to the value of individual human freedom and I fear will have to learn the hard way by losing it and fighting to regain it.

Good luck...

Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Tsh, Amicus. We can disagree about how to achieve human freedom without being opposed to the concept itself.

As it happens, I think that in some ways you're quite right about the dawn of the United States and its government. There were a hundred ways for people to have turned that nascent country into an autocracy for the benefit of one or the other of them, and precious few for it to turn into something very different. It was an epic moment when Washington declined to be made a king. It was an epic moment when rights and liberties for all (white, male) people were enshrined in writing.

I only disagree that it was the final moment. A thing can be the greatest thing to date without being perfect. In fact, that's the inevitable reality when one thinks of evolution. Species arise, amaze the world with their new abilities, and then eventually are replaced by whatever builds on those concepts and takes them to the next plateau.

That's about where I am with the founding concepts of our country. I believe that they were a truly remarkable achievement for their day, and that they are still a truly remarkable achievement now, as they stand, already amended and updated though generations to enable them to continue to serve us. I'm simply not persuaded that they are perfect. Perfection seems very rarely to be the lot of humanity.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It is that essence and spirit of the Constitution that this radical wishes to preserve intact, that which acknowledges and protects the sovreignty of the individual and his right to exist independent of all else.

You know, I'm not quite sure how you intended that last modifying phrase, but it strikes me because lately I think that that's the flaw I've seen in modern attempts to enact a wholly laissez-faire model of both rights and economy. It would all work very well if, indeed, an individual could exist independent of all else. However, there's not a person in the country who does exist that way. We all feels the effects of the actions of others, whether it's drinking what they pour into the water, breathing what they put into the air, driving on the roads they have constructed, or eating the food they've produced.

This always seems to me to be the rock that absolute free market libertarianism runs aground on. It assumes a state that does not, in practical reality, exist - a state in which each of us both feels and is responsible for only our own actions. It simply doesn't occur. I'd quite like to see that branch of socio-economic theory give a good solid answer to how to address that issue, but it seems that all I can get from anyone is an insistence that we *ought* to be utterly untrammeled by the actions and wills of others.

 

[rgraham666]

Libertarianism is like all ideologies, a method of avoiding personal responsibility.

 

[amicus]

Shang, I and many others have addressed that before and although it seems, in a way, contradictory, it is not.

'Perfection', is, in the eyes of many, impossible to achieve, I tend to agree in terms of large generalities such as politics...however...

The ideal of 'perfection' that of a laissez-faire market and absolute human freedom, is that essential concept or abstraction that need be held in front of us to pursue, as best we can, to achieve and realize.

We begin with freedom and a free market and adapt or accommodate as the population increases and times change but...and this is essential, the fundamental concept of freedom is not violated or abridged, merely expanded, as it has been, to include minorities and women, to make a case specific example or two.

This concept is much easier to grasp if one does not carry the burden of either a supreme being or a concept containing the greater good that exists as a higher value than the individuality of man.

With either of those concepts in play, individual freedom can and has often been sacrificed to attempt to achieve something greater than the life of man and his freedom.

As an aside....but it came to mind....the content of a series of programs on History International, 'Hitler's War', I think it is called, the last episode dealt with the four year Nazi occupation of Paris, France in general and of course the rest of Europe, but specifically, Begium, Sweden and Norway.

The 'collaborators', those who slept with, accommodated the Germans, knowingly gave up their national heritage as a practical matter of saving their own lives. One can understand that...one can also under those who did not give up and joined a 'Resistance', of one form or another and refused to aid the Nazi's.

After the war, when the Allies liberated Europe, there was hell to pay, as one might well imagine as the population attempted to regain national pride and identity again.

I mention this because I think it is germane to many discussions on this board that seems heavily populated by Europeans and those sympathetic to Euro's and this program, these programs, shed a light, perhaps only for me, as a generation and more since the war has passed and few have living memories of the terror of 1940-1945.

Europe, I sense, in general, still lives in shame at the events of ww2. I also sense that the hatred of America stems partly from the fact that we saw what was done to the French and the Jews of Europe and Euro's know that we saw and understood.

It is difficult to really understand when people speak of a hatred that lasts hundreds of years, down through the generations, but with many German fathered children now well into middle age all through continental europe, I begin to get a sense of why things are as they are.

Just a thought I had to get out of my head....sorry for the rant....

Amicus...