Posted on 05/14/2009 2:28:24 PM PDT by Bill Dupray
Agreed, some folks need to brush up on their definitions and terms.
I clicked on the thread thinking his must be a new democrat idea to fool the sheeple into even bigger government
Hate to parody Clinton, but it depends on what the meaning of "federalism" is. Nowadays, "conservatives" tend to use the term "federalism" as implying a balance between the powers of the federal and state governments, so promoting "federalism" would generally mean supporting a decrease in the power of the federal government and devolution of some of that power back to state governments or the people.
Thanks js.
Right. Because the 16th in effect did repeal the 13th.
Maybe the solution to that is to simply discontinue the practice of creating legal artificial persons and leave political spending unregulated.
Would you know what I meant if I asked you about C#?
Sure. You mean the one that comes before D or the one that comes after C++? If it's the former I'll take a stab at it. If it's the latter I'd probably have to charge you.
Barnett needs to learn a little about the history of this country so he can at least get the titles of his academic tirades correct.
Perhaps he has never heard of the, "Federalist Papers," written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, a series of eighty five essays written as a defense and promotion of the US Constitution, advocating its ratification. Perhaps he's never heard of the falling out between Madison and Hamilton over Hamilton's acts to extend the power of the Federal government beyond the limits to which, men like Madison, Jefferson, Jay, and Patrick Henry and others, felt the constitution constrained the government. Perhaps he is unaware that those who opposed the extension of government power were called "anti-Federalists" and that there is a body of work by such men call the "Anti-federalist Papers." Perhaps professor Barnett needs to learn a little history.
Madison, by the way, is called the, "Father of the Constitution," and was strongly opposed to a "bill of rights." He wrote them to gain the approval of the anti-Federalists and agreement to ratify the new constitution. His reasons for opposing the bill of rights are instructive:
1. it was unnecessary, since it supposedly protected people from powers the federal government did not have, 2. it was dangerous because specifying some rights could imply the exclusion of others not specified, and 3. at the state level such "bills of rights" had proved useless against government power.
It is the last of Madison's objections to the bill of rights that is the most instructive. There were already "bills of rights" such as the one Madison presented to be ratified for the US Constitution in several states, particularly Madison's own state of Virginia—and Madison correctly observed they had been totally ineffectual in curbing the power of the state.
This is the fundamental flaw in Barnett's proposal, and all other such proposals, that totally baseless belief that the behavior of men, especially politicians, can be, in any way, constrained by something written on a piece of paper.
Madison and Hamilton were absolutely correct about their objections to a bill of rights. If the Constitution, as it was written, was strictly adhered to, there would have been no need for a "bill of rights." The desire for a, "bill of rights," was based on the certain belief that men cannot be controlled by a Constitution, or any other piece of paper that expresses noble sentiments.
If the Constitution, as it is written, including its unnecessary amendments, does not limit the obscene excesses of today's politicians, what makes anyone think, adding more rhetoric to that constitution is going to make an iota of difference
Even worse is Barnett's idea of calling for a Constitutional Convention. The problem is not what's written in the Constitution (because every single issue Barnett thinks he is making explicit is already explicit in the Constitution), but the fact you have a nation populated with those so ignorant they could vote for someone totally unqualified for the office of President of The United States, and approve of all his "programs." If there were a Constitutional Convention called today, far from adopting Barnett's 10 amendments, the entire constitution would be turned into a socialistic manifesto.
Hank
Yes.
why do I think that the final “gift” of this most narcissistic generation of baby-boomers will be a Constitutional Convention to attempt to permanently enshrine their egos in perpetuity....
This need more thought.
At a minimum:
Amendment XVII needs to be repealed/replaced with something that makes the Senators responsible to their particular state so that the balance of power between the people, the State governments and the Federal government is more balanced.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 1:
“Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes…” needs to be accompanied by repeal of the current Amendment XVI, else they will be in conflict.
“…sale of goods or services…” needs to be “…sale or barter of goods or services…”. Otherwise, anyone who can, will barter something they make or some service they provide to avoid the tax. Some will say “good”, but it isn’t "good" since it will just put the tax burden on those who can’t barter for whatever reason or require an increase in some other impost, duty or excise tax to make up the needed revenue. Any tax should be justly levied and if taxes are too high, the way to keep them low is to eliminate government expense and the need for revenue.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 2:
“…shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state…” Would “…any activity that is confined within a single state” include diverting river water to state uses when the water would normally flow to and be shared with another state? Would it include flood prevention measures that cause worse flooding downstream in another state? Or is water an “emission” under the terms of the article? How about a radio station that violates current FCC standards and dominates frequencies in other states making them unusable? Or are the radio waves an “emission”? How about flight paths? Does each state control its own airspace?
Regarding: Article of Amendment 3:
Unfunded mandates are a problem but I don’t think having them “fully reimbursed by the United States” is the answer. (What does that even mean? All the States reimburse all the States?) Some sort of sharing of the expense would be better. That would necessitate buy in from the States. There may be some things they might not want done even if they were fully reimbursed. And they might go along with some things they shouldn’t if they were fully reimbursed. Having to share in the expense would make them more prudent. And changing Amendment XVII would hopefully put the Senators in a position of looking out for State interests in any of this.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 6:
What Article 6?
Regarding: Article of Amendment 7:
I have mixed feelings on term limits. It just puts the power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats and staff who support the elected officials, since they will be the ones most acquainted with the system, procedures, how to get things done or slow them down, etc.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 7:
I have some problems with this one. I’m not certain there is a right to “enjoy” anymore than there is a right to “happy”. I’ll acknowledge a right to pursue enjoyment just as there is a right to pursue happiness. And I have a problem with the “natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are…acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts…” For instance, under “natural” conditions acquiring real property is accomplished by gathering your relatives and friends and running off or killing whoever is claiming the real property you want, which is fair because that is the way they got it. I don’t think we want to reinstitute that kind of thing. As to “contracts”, it needs to be clear that we are not talking about legal contracts enforced by a government with all its laws and such, but the kind of contracts that are agreements reached between people under conditions of “natural”, without government and all it entails.
There’s other stuff, but I’m done for now except to note that a lot of the problems could be eliminated by making the Senators responsible to the States, looking out for State interests (which include the interests of the people of the States) while the representatives in Congress look out for the interests of the people (who also elect the State officials to look out for their interests).
“If there were a Constitutional Convention called today, far from adopting Barnett’s 10 amendments, the entire constitution would be turned into a socialistic manifesto.”
You’ve got that right.
I am glad you got that off your chest.
Well said.
“I am glad you got that off your chest.”
I’m delighted that you are glad for me, but have no idea what you mean. I’ve simply pointed out some historical facts. Thought the intelligent people here, and those who desire individual liberty, would appreciate that.
Hank
Thanks for the ping!
Well, I know of at least one person who didn't know.
This is the very kind of non-essential thinking that has led this country into its perpetual downward spiral into totalitarianist oppression.
Damned non-essential thinking. I tell ya, thinking oughta be rationed.
But Barnett is an academic and hardly more might be expected from that quarter.
Damned academics. I tell ya, degrees oughta be rationed.
Barnett needs to learn a little about the history of this country so he can at least get the titles of his academic tirades correct. Perhaps he has never heard of the, "Federalist Papers," written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, a series of eighty five essays written as a defense and promotion of the US Constitution, advocating its ratification. Perhaps he's never heard of the falling out between Madison and Hamilton over Hamilton's acts to extend the power of the Federal government beyond the limits to which, men like Madison, Jefferson, Jay, and Patrick Henry and others, felt the constitution constrained the government. Perhaps he is unaware that those who opposed the extension of government power were called "anti-Federalists" and that there is a body of work by such men call the "Anti-federalist Papers." Perhaps professor Barnett needs to learn a little history.
Well, with a little remedial help, he may hope to someday be as well educated as you. I'm sure the difference in opinion can only be attributed the to yawning gulf which divides your respective literary accomplishments.
1. it was unnecessary, since it supposedly protected people from powers the federal government did not have, 2. it was dangerous because specifying some rights could imply the exclusion of others not specified, and 3. at the state level such "bills of rights" had proved useless against government power.[sic]
They are unnecessary, that is, the contingency upon which they are predicated will not happen. But they are also useless, because the contingency upon which they are predicated will happen anyway. That's some very essential and non-academic thinking you have right there.
If the Constitution, as it is written, including its unnecessary amendments, does not limit the obscene excesses of today's politicians, what makes anyone think, adding more rhetoric to that constitution is going to make an iota of difference
On a related note: Seat-belts?! What's up with that?
Really, the gist of your whole post is that you are so sincerely opposed to abusive government that you despise any attempt to prevent it. It reads like the complaint of an inmate who resents finding his door locked because he would never try to escape.
I suggest that, in future postings, you compose your language with a little more humility, or any humility. Given your performance, I suggest 'really humble'.
Actually, the 13th Amendment merely burdens the government with the formality of criminalizing you before enslaving you. People should not take comfort in it.
“They are unnecessary, that is, the contingency upon which they are predicated will not happen. But they are also useless, because the contingency upon which they are predicated will happen anyway. That’s some very essential and non-academic thinking you have right there.”
The ideas are not mine. They were James Madison’s
But thanks for giving me the credit.
Perhaps the Father of the Constitution ought to have been more humble.
“Well, with a little remedial help, he may hope to someday be as well educated as you. I’m sure the difference in opinion can only be attributed the to yawning gulf which divides your respective literary accomplishments.”
That’s not true. Barnett has no literary accomplishments to compare with mine, and education is not likely to make him able to accomplish any at this late date. He’s just a right-leaning academic hack that any high school student of my generation could have intellectually chewed up and spit out.
Hank
Never heard of the former and HAAAATED the latter (when in school anyway). I’ll take care of the subject in question rather well myself so no services necessary thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.