[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:27:21 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jim Burnes <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
> > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to
> > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the
> > constitution, much less say how it should be amended.
That's an easy way to brush aside having to prove your point. Especialy
after having drawn a completely illogical and incorrect conclusion like
this.
> > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been
> > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is
> > in the interests of our general welfare.
This sentence makes no sense, mind rewording it so I know specificaly what
it is your talking about. No amendment has to be passed.
> Madison explicitly addressed
> > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause.
Would you mind explaining where providing for the *general* welfare equates
to unlimited powers? No government has unlimited powers and providing for
the general welfare can't honestly be extrapolated to that conclusion.
Within the context of the Constitution general welfare is in reference to
building a framework for the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
> > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this
> > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their
> > conclusion was not already decided.
Found what? Whose conclusions, the founding fathers or the sitting supremes?
> > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal
> > government. It is very specific.
And prohibits the enumeration of individual liberties by the same
government. Rather handy little situation that, since it completely blows
holes in any move to derive totalitarian control (which by the way is not
democratic).
As Madison stated, if the general
> > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there
> > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal
> > government.
Well to be accurate there was no enumeration of the specific powers in the
original Constitution, it's why Jefferson (who was in France at the time),
Madison, and others fought and supported the Bill of Rights. Because of the
9th and 10th such moves are inherently doomed to failure.
In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had
> > said:
> >
> > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it
> > feels necessary."
> >
> > "The powers of the federal government are as follows"
> >
> > (1)
> > (2)
> > (3) etc
> >
> > Which would be ridiculous on its face.
This entire section is ridiculous. To say on one hand the powers are
unlimited and then to proceed to list them weakens the argument, this was
also the reason for the 10th. It prevents such extrapolations as this.
> > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the
> > Supreme Court.
Wow, I didn't realize Roosevelt was even alive to participate in the
original Constitutional debates.
I'm going to stop here since we are obviously off on one of your pet peeves
that isn't related to the discussion at hand. To jump 150 years in one fell
swoop is pretty extraordinary. The reality is, as Jefferson himself said,
that the laws of one generation aren't the laws of another.
____________________________________________________________________
Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
the right answers.
Scully (X-Files)
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------