Making the ship of government selfrighting XBOX 360 2626
Making the ship of government selfrighting XBOX 360 2629
Who says that Europeans liked the "big brother"? I could point out a couple of cases where you really wanted to avoid being...
This is one of the reasons that the U.S. was designed as a federation of independent States rather than around an all-powerful central government. The States cede certain specified powers to the federal government and retain the rest.
The Consbreastution should probably have been amended for those items, though in the case of the space program it is not a stretch to realize the military disadvantage we would be in should another nation aquire supremacy in space. There is also the clause calling for the national government to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," though the wording is specific to the granting of patents.
Each of your examples, while worthwhile in their own right, may well represent central government escaping a bit more from the limitations it was supposed to be bound by. If it can do so for these, it can ultimately do so for less worthy, even damaging, actions. (Jefferson wrote of binding men down from mischief "by the chains of the Consbreastution.")
Yes, it is an extensible document. The trouble is that politicians and judges have found it more convenient to distort or ignore its restrictions rather than go through the amendment process.
The Fed was created well before the Great Depression. It is not clear at all that it was (or is) a good thing, however it is certainly not something that fits in the framework of the Consbreastution. (Many of the Founding Fathers feared the power that a central banking system would have.)
No need to forget "well regulated," at the time of the ratification of the Consbreastution it essentially meant "well trained" or "well practiced." The militia consisted of all able-bodied men, and this is still supported by statute. (See 10USC311(a) and (b).)
It may not be "scripture," but it is the supreme law of the land. Where it falls short it may be extended via the amendment process. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of "the end justifies the means," which is a very slippery slope. We have seen many historical examples of what happens when governments have unrestricted powers.
While certainly possible, you don't know that. One could just as easily say he would be enamoured of the personal freedom afforded by the automobile. It's very easy to put words in the mouths of the dead.
I'm not sure what your point is here, I was not advocating "no tax," I was pointing out that one of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed is that it made the central government too weak, to the point of denying it taxing authority.
Did you complain when the Democrats had this majority? If not, you are not really concerned about the idea of one party being in power, you are simply disappointed that the politicans you support are currently in the minority.
Separation of powers is not really about how many political parties are in power in the various branches. The Consbreastution does not even mention political parties. The separation of powers doctrine is about keeping various functions of government separated so that power does not become too concentrated in one place.
While I do not believe that we should have invaded Iraq, I don't see what it has to do with the doctrine of the law maker's intent being the force and effect of the law. I may be missing something in your comparison, but I'm just not seeing the equivalence here.
Absolutely. One of the most important features of the Consbreastution is its extensibility via the amendment process to meet new challenges and conditions.
At the extremes both start looking very similar, grabbing power for power's sake on the pretext of doing good.
Both major parties are incredibly corrupt.
The Dems don't exactly have a sterling record either. (For example, history has shown us that the Dems filibustered against the Civil Rights Act -- although Johnson was of the same party he had to rely on the Republicans to get that legislation through. Vietnam is another obvious example.) The Democrats also screw the people of this country in their own ways. The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and few seem to notice that nothing really changes for the better no matter which major party is in power. I doubt this will change until such time that people get so fed up with both that a viable third party arises.
In such as case we would be back in the same boat as we were with the Articles of Confederation. (I do not believe the Consbreastution's provisions would permit this, as certain powers are clearly ceded by the States to the central authority. Amendments subsquent to the War Between the States further subjected the individual states to Consbreastutional authority.)
Getting the right balance of power is quite a tightrope act. Too little and everything falls apart, too much and you wind up with the Soviet Union MKII, or worse.
-- Roger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.)
Making the ship of government selfrighting XBOX 360 2627
The problem here is not one which would be solved by importing extra eurocrats from Brussels. The federal rules should be limited to setting standards; i.e. minimum requirements...
XBOX 360 2631
It is now a civil war in Iraq.. According to reports, the US has already...
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups