In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:18:31 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?
How about "promote the general welfare"?
Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".
The section you quote reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
Since the "promote" clause is in the preamble, it could be held to be
"delegated to the United states".
Hardly -- the preamble merely sets forth the _reasons_ for the establishment
of the Constitution. It's quite a stretch to claim that the language of the
preamble is describing the _powers_granted_ by the Constitution, since those
powers are enumerated quite specifically in the numbered Articles.
But yes, there is room for disagreement
on the meaning and scope.
Not much, IMHO...
But those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists (wow, I managed to
spell that!) are somewhat akin to strict Scripturalists. Very few of them
cut off offending parts, and those who handle serpents are considered a
wee bit off in the head. Old testament rules don't apply well today.
There's at least one major difference: the doctrine of "strict Scripturalism"
is found nowhere in Scripture, and is therefore logically inconsistent.
Likewise, many of the Constitutional provisions that made obvious sense in
a lightly populated agrarian society where power rested on white male
landowners lose something in today's society. For example:
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Yes, it's been abrogated by the 13th amendment, but the verbiage is still
in there :-).
Actually, one could argue that it has not been abrogated: the 13th Amendment
doesn't prohibit *voluntary* servitude, and this language would certainly
appear to apply to any contracts thus involved. g
But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
constitutional. So by definition anything they agree with is
constitutional. It may be reversed in the future, but for now you and I
are stuck with it.
No, _by_definition_ "Constitutional" is what the Constitution says;
_for_practical_purposes_ "Constitutional" is what the S.C. agrees with. A
small disctinction, perhaps, but nonetheless a crucial one.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution,..."
Yep. And that's the limit. Unfortunately, the S.C. often forgets that.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at
http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe