Posted on 12/03/2001 11:53:17 PM PST by FF578
Wrong answer from the wrong perspective. There's nothing in the Constitution which gives the government the right to prohibit drugs. If you want to prohibit them, fine. Pass an Amendment and do it legally. I would probably even support it. Until then, the 10th Amendment says the government is now intruding in a prohibited area.
Why not?
Is there any evidence that any of the Constitution's authors disagreed that it founded a federal government whose powers were strictly limited to those that were explicitly enumerated?
I think so. According to my reading, the first Bank of the United States involved just that sort of controversy. You had Hamilton and Washington going one way, and Madison and others going the other. As I recall, it involved the breadth of certain now famous phrases, i.e., "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce", etc.
Anyway, my reason for not wanting to debate the subject is that, IMO, it is settled. The Constitution is, generally speaking, broadly interpreted. There are piles and piles of SCOTUS caselaw, and therefore, piles and piles of state and Federal law, built on such interpretations. Further, my impression is that, culturally, Americans are not too concerned about following a standard, and therefore are willing to "cheat" the Constitution, even if we did decide to strictly interpret it. So, from my point of view, it would take a revolution to make any headway on that subject.
Therefore, I find it more practical and realistic to explore ways of producing change within the system as it is currently understood. In my mind, if you can have enough important victories-on rights, entitlements, taxes--you breed a culture more amenable to a debate on 9th, 10th and limited Government. However, sucha debate has to address the abject failures of the states in the past, namely slavery and Jim Crow, both of which were STATE systems tolerated for a time by the FedGov. They are also a big reason the original sense of the 10th changed, IMO.
Washington was not an author of the Constitution. (Was Hamilton? I forget.)
going one way, and Madison and others going the other. As I recall, it involved the breadth of certain now famous phrases, i.e., "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce", etc.
The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.
Anyway, my reason for not wanting to debate the subject is that, IMO, it is settled. The Constitution is, generally speaking, broadly interpreted. There are piles and piles of SCOTUS caselaw, and therefore, piles and piles of state and Federal law, built on such interpretations. Further, my impression is that, culturally, Americans are not too concerned about following a standard, and therefore are willing to "cheat" the Constitution, even if we did decide to strictly interpret it.
You may be right about all that. But is has no bearing on the important question of what is the conservative position---and whether a truly conservative position can ever countenance a violation of the Constitution (which the intrastate portion of the federal War On Some Drugs clearly is).
In my mind, if you can have enough important victories-on rights, entitlements, taxes--you breed a culture more amenable to a debate on 9th, 10th and limited Government.
Perhaps. Or perhaps by ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments in fighting those battles, we'll have practically conceded that they are dead letters.
However, sucha debate has to address the abject failures of the states in the past, namely slavery and Jim Crow, both of which were STATE systems tolerated for a time by the FedGov. They are also a big reason the original sense of the 10th changed, IMO.
Nonsense. The post-Civil War amendments addressed those issues, which are nonetheless the liberals' favorite brushes for smearing the Founders' basic principle of limited federal government.
Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Virginia. After the convention the electoral collage unanimously elected him our first President. If you are going to attempt to discount George Washington's authority on our Constititution, you are in for an uphill climb.
Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the convention from New York, and served under Washington as our first Treasury Secretary, and was also a co-author of the Federalist Papers. Again, if you wish to get around him, you are in for some rough going.
Incidentally, among those who did NOT attend the Constitiutional Convention were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John and Samuel Adams.
The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.
On what authority do you make such a statement? Could you cite your reference? What is your expertise in the area?
But is has no bearing on the important question of what is the conservative position---and whether a truly conservative position can ever countenance a violation of the Constitution (which the intrastate portion of the federal War On Some Drugs clearly is).
Aaaah, a "truly" conservative position. That is, I guess, an interesting theoretical argument, but I choose to remain in the real world.
Or perhaps by ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments in fighting those battles, we'll have practically conceded that they are dead letters.
Practically, they are dead letters, from a conservative point of view. That is my point.
Nonsense. The post-Civil War amendments addressed those issues, which are nonetheless the liberals' favorite brushes for smearing the Founders' basic principle of limited federal government.
You can't skip ahead to the post-Civil War so easily. In reality, it was the WAR which addressed the issues. When the post-war amendments were passed, the slave states were still firmly ensconced under the Union's bootheel. Later on, with Jim Crow, the same mess was played out again, thankfully,without a war. But the fact remains, the problems of the old south were examples of state governments engaging in tyrannical rule, and the Federal government interceding to ensure liberty. This has left the concept of states rights in disrepute ever since, fairly or not. It is a shame, IMO. Many fine states were quite capable, from the beginning, of governing themselves.
Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Virginia. After the convention the electoral collage unanimously elected him our first President.
None of which makes him an author of the Constitution.
If you are going to attempt to discount George Washington's authority on our Constititution, you are in for an uphill climb.
He had no more authority on our Constitution than any other delegate---and here's what the other delegates thought: "At the convention Hamilton was unable to play a significant role. His desire for a strongly centralized federal government, including a president for life, was not shared by the other convention delegates." (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia)
Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the convention from New York, and served under Washington as our first Treasury Secretary, and was also a co-author of the Federalist Papers. Again, if you wish to get around him, you are in for some rough going.
See above. Not to mention that what, once holding the reins of power, he claimed to think the Constitution said proves little about what he understood it to say at the time of its ratification. I'll see if I can find anything in his Federalist Paper writings that indicates a belief in "loose construction."
The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.
On what authority do you make such a statement? Could you cite your reference? What is your expertise in the area?
My authority and expertise is that of a native speaker of English and a reader and author of many documents in that language.
Aaaah, a "truly" conservative position. That is, I guess, an interesting theoretical argument, but I choose to remain in the real world.
So "real world" conservatism gives up the Constitution for dead? I think you've confused the "real world" with the grave.
Practically, [the 9th and 10th amendments] are dead letters, from a conservative point of view. That is my point.
So you hope to "breed a culture more amenable to a debate on" dead letters? And you claim to live in the real world??
the problems of the old south were examples of state governments engaging in tyrannical rule, and the Federal government interceding to ensure liberty.
Interceding through Constitutional means, i.e., the passing of appropriately empowering amendments.
This has left the concept of states rights in disrepute ever since, fairly or not.
Not. This disrepute is a sleazy tactic of the Left and has no bearing on the proper interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't know what you mean by "author". He was the presiding delegate of the Convention which created our Constitution. What is your point? If you think Washington is of no importance in the matter, say so.
He had no more authority on our Constitution than any other delegate---and here's what the other delegates thought: "At the convention Hamilton was unable to play a significant role. His desire for a strongly centralized federal government, including a president for life, was not shared by the other convention delegates." (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia)
So your contention is that Washington was considered an equal with all the others? OK, you can believe that if you like. As for your quote, you didn't identify which other delegate said that, and anyway it's beside the point. If it is your contention that Alexander Hamilton was inconsequential in the crafting of our government, say so.
My authority and expertise is that of a native speaker of English and a reader and author of many documents in that language.
I see. You speak English.
So "real world" conservatism gives up the Constitution for dead? I think you've confused the "real world" with the grave.
Real world conservatism competes in the marketplace, not the ivory tower. What is "truly" conservative is totally meaningless if it can't be applied to our government. It is easy for people to sit on the sidelines, pure and unvarnished. Let one such person win an election, or pass a law, then they can talk.
So you hope to "breed a culture more amenable to a debate on" dead letters? And you claim to live in the real world??
Abraham Lincoln once said "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." I agree with him on that. If the public is convinced of the ideas behind the law, the law will succeed. Therefore, I believe we should foster the ideas, if we ever hope to have the laws observed.
Interceding through Constitutional means, i.e., the passing of appropriately empowering amendments.
It was a lot more than just that. First and foremost it meant going to war. And let's not forget as recently as 1968 a majority of Southern states voted for a segregationist third party candidate for President, even though such a policy had already been ruled unconstitutional. This type of ongoing disregard for civil liberty has left many Americans with grave doubts about states' ability to govern themselves.
Not. This disrepute is a sleazy tactic of the Left and has no bearing on the proper interpretation of the Constitution.
You know best. I can see you have it all figured out. Maybe you can write a book and change the world. Take care.
Television does a far better job of that than any pharmacological item, controlled or otherwise.
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.