[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
10.5
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: 10.5
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:42:23 -0500
- Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automatedremailing service. For additional information on this service,send a message with the subject "remailer-help" [email protected]. The body of the message will bediscarded. To report abuse, contact the operator [email protected]. Headers below this point wereinserted by the original sender.
- Sender: [email protected]
nobody since
Nixon was been impeached for violating his oath of
office by subverting the Constitution. This suggests
either that everyone honors the oath or that the oath is
meaningless.
Suppose, in a society with a normal level of
criminal behavior, there were no prosecutions for
burglary. Would you infer that there were no burglaries
in that society? Or would you infer, rather, that the
burglary laws just weren't being enforced?
When a
bill is proposed in Congress, our representatives almost
never ask themselves: "Where in the Constitution do
we get the power to enact this measure?" Instead they
presume that they have virtually any power they
choose to exercise. They simply feel no tension
between their will and the Constitution that is supposed
to restrain them. This doesn't look much like an ethos
of limited government.