I think we both understand the "reasoning" but that's the dilema...the reasoning exists and we both disagree with the outcome.
How do we get here? What can be done to prevent it? Does it need to be prevented?
Either way...what you convey is interesting.
As for intent, of course I refer to the federalist papers, among others, and your absolutely correct, they hold no legal standing...but by the same token niether does intent itself. Where does that leave us? With a text outlining some guidelines, with what in my opinion are quite clear and unambiguous...and even more importantly with a clearly defined change mechanism. Why do we need interpretation? Which is essentially nuances or changes to the meaning, scope of reach of the text.
Anyway, it is all but certain that federalism is dead. I think we can also agree on that. Enumerated federal powers are moot, the reach and scope of the federal government has no limits, and this, is contrary to the intent of the framers, in so far as we can understand their intent.
I suspect you're for it (its death)...and I, well, I am not.
It's been fun tonight, and has been on several occassions lately on this board...but this night comes to and for me shortly.
-bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
|