Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Well, nothing has changed with the document itself, I suppose, with the exception of amendments. The problem is that the document isn't very well written when you consider how widely it has been interpreted.
|
When it was first written and the various speakers went about the colonies explaining the whole thing, NOTHING was ever refuted, NOTHING. Everyone who read the various commentaries knew what it was about. It only became muddled after the fact by ideological politicians with agendas. Alien and Sedition Acts as a case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
There is one thing I can say with confidence about the American Constitution: one cannot always say, "the Constitution says so with no uncertain terms." As far as its function, that hasn't changed either. It is designed to protect the individual and to limit the powers of government. At the same time, it's intent is not to render government powerless.
|
When the phrases of 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', 'no warrant shall', and others like it can't be understood to mean it shall not be done, the rest of it is meaningless. And it doesn't render the government powerless. It prescribes very specific powers, but that's it. Those powers aren't supposed to ebb and flow because the government feels it can't do something it wasn't supposed to, but feels the need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
What has changed is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to protect the interests of the individual in a world of increasing complexity, abstraction, and mass communication.
|
The government was charged with protecting the rights of the people, nothing more, nothing less. That's not that hard to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But this is the problem and the point of my previous post. It isn't always clear what exactly is meant in the writing.
|
all the commentaries about it during ratification suggest otherwise.
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you mean this in the way that "i am saying that..." can be tacked on to any sentence you say, right?
what does "ideological reasoning" mean?
|
ideological reasoning.....like deciding that the commerce clause can be used to regulate whether someone can grow a dozen roses or tulips in their backyard because it affects the interstate market for roses or tulips. You and I both know that there is no way in absolute hell that the framers wanted the feds to have that kind of power with the commerce clause.