Budget director blames old computers for ineffective government
(via Instapundit)
It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
The government is ineffective because it's trying to do things beyond its few legitimate functions. Shiny new computers aren't going to help them spread the wealth around, or enable transformational change all that much.
In other words, government isn't working because its doing things it can't and shouldn't do.
It's not just my personal preference for limited government that's behind this. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the very specific enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendments confirm that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the States and People. Thanks to 200+ years of generous reinterpretation by the Supreme Court, the government operates under "constitutional law" rather than the Constitution. Today, even if actions by the federal government violate the very letter of the Constitution, as long as lawyers can point to some vaguely-worded SCOTUS opinion that seems to support their case, the leviathan marches on.
More here: Healthcare: Is "mandatory insurance" unconstitutional?
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Narrowing the Second Amendment
Jeff Soyer points us to an opinion in Hamblen v. USA recently issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The opinion includes:
The court's opinion betrays a colossal misunderstanding about the relationship between We the People and our government. The People do not start from zero liberty to which is added only by special dispensation. The government does not start from unlimited power which is only restricted by its own writ. In fact, the opposite is true.
If the Second Amendment doesn't prevent States from banning firearms, then the States are not bound by the other Amendments either. I don't think the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and federally-administered territories.
By their nature (whether created or evolved) human beings (like all other creatures) have an inherent and unalienable right to effective self-defense. It is not immoral for a man to defend his family, property, or life, just as a cheetah would defend her cubs or her life. The most effective form of self-defense for man is a firearm. So, to deny a man the right to keep and bear arms is to deny him the right to effective self-defense.
So why does the leftist/statist seek to deny man his natural right to self-defense? Perhaps it is combination of hoplophobia, victimhood culture, and the promotion of total dependency on the state. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In ongoing cases such as NRA v. Chicago, the left wants SCOTUS to interpret the 1st Amendment (which explicitly mentions Congress) as also restricting the States, but to interpret the 2nd Amendment (which makes no such limitation) as only applying to Congress. Talk about not following the plain English of the Constitution's text...
It is truly a scary time in the United States when a Constitutionally-protected right (protected, but not granted, by the Constitution, that is) is only upheld by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision (see DC v. Heller).
Reason.com has a relevant article:
In any case, it's safe to say their experiment with gun control has failed.
The opinion includes:
"Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use."Umm, excuse me, what? Where does the Constitution give the federal government the explicit authority over this? It doesn't. It does, however, recognize the individual right to bear arms.
The court's opinion betrays a colossal misunderstanding about the relationship between We the People and our government. The People do not start from zero liberty to which is added only by special dispensation. The government does not start from unlimited power which is only restricted by its own writ. In fact, the opposite is true.
If the Second Amendment doesn't prevent States from banning firearms, then the States are not bound by the other Amendments either. I don't think the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and federally-administered territories.
By their nature (whether created or evolved) human beings (like all other creatures) have an inherent and unalienable right to effective self-defense. It is not immoral for a man to defend his family, property, or life, just as a cheetah would defend her cubs or her life. The most effective form of self-defense for man is a firearm. So, to deny a man the right to keep and bear arms is to deny him the right to effective self-defense.
So why does the leftist/statist seek to deny man his natural right to self-defense? Perhaps it is combination of hoplophobia, victimhood culture, and the promotion of total dependency on the state. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In ongoing cases such as NRA v. Chicago, the left wants SCOTUS to interpret the 1st Amendment (which explicitly mentions Congress) as also restricting the States, but to interpret the 2nd Amendment (which makes no such limitation) as only applying to Congress. Talk about not following the plain English of the Constitution's text...
It is truly a scary time in the United States when a Constitutionally-protected right (protected, but not granted, by the Constitution, that is) is only upheld by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision (see DC v. Heller).
Reason.com has a relevant article:
Laboratories of RepressionIf they can "experiment" with the 2nd Amendment, they can experiment with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 15th, and 24th Amendments as well. Is Chicago permitted to "experiment" with establishing a religion or reintroducing slavery?
We don’t let the states "experiment" on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?
In any case, it's safe to say their experiment with gun control has failed.
"Constitutional Law" vs. the Constitution
My soon-to-be brother-in-law is in law school and just completed a class in "Constitutional Law." The entire course was spent exploring SCOTUS opinions regarding the 14th amendment. Absolutely nothing else. He tells me there are no other required courses that cover the Constitution at all.
I'm told this is a common experience among law students. If these students aren't taught the basic principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, what hope is there that the majority will actually understand them? If lawyers don't even understand the Constitution, what hope is there that the People will? If the People don't really understand the Constitution, what hope is there that they'll elect representatives who do? This is how we end up with rulers rather than representatives...
I'm told this is a common experience among law students. If these students aren't taught the basic principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, what hope is there that the majority will actually understand them? If lawyers don't even understand the Constitution, what hope is there that the People will? If the People don't really understand the Constitution, what hope is there that they'll elect representatives who do? This is how we end up with rulers rather than representatives...
Friday, September 11, 2009
About the General Welfare Clause
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Many people point to the general welfare clause as constitutional authority for myriad federal programs designed to advance "the greater good." But does this clause really give Congress a blank check to assume any powers it deems fit to "promote the general Welfare?" It is important to consider what the Founding Fathers themselves wrote regarding this issue:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1798
With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.- James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, 1831
Historically, the (pre-New Deal) Supreme Court has also been instructive on the matter at hand:
The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress.- Joseph Story (former SCOTUS justice), Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
It seems the Framers did not intend to empower Congress to act in whatever fashion it deems necessary for "promote the general Welfare."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)