













Comments     Threshold


RE: $$$
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 3:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're on the right track lifeblood looking at the constitution, but pointed the finger in the wrong direction, I think.

The constitution is fine, and was fine, until 1860. Northern liberals and southern conservatives fiercely disagreed on the power of the federal government and independence of states. In a pre-1860 world where we tried to strictly follow the constitution, Bush wouldn't likely have the power he does, and Congress wouldn't yield near the influence it does on the common man.

However, we know how the Civil War went. Northern, big-government liberals pervailed, and Lincoln established a strong tradition of entirely ignoring the constitution in the process. The Bill of Rights may as well not have existed, but to draw a parallel with Iraq, it was considered audacious that Lincoln dare raise an army to defend DC without first getting Congress to rubber stamp it. Roosevelt picked up the same ball and ran with it; he made campaign promises that no American boy would die on foreign soil (playing to the isolationist mood) while simultaneously planning how to covertly mobilize for war.

Today, the constitution is a cute formality, for both parties. We could follow it the way the framers intended, but Scalia was interviewed on some left-wing show I came across. The interviewer clearly thought he was a neanderthal for holding an originalist view of the Constitution; she couldn't seem to believe that someone could not buy in to the "living constitution" view, where the meaning of the constitution changes to be whatever the unwashed masses want it to mean on the fly.

RE: $$$
By lifeblood on 6/3/2008 9:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that fight goes back to the very beginning of our country. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central (federal) government, while people like Thomas Jefferson believed in a limited central government and a very literal reading of the constitution. Obviously the federalists eventually won.

As with all things, this had both good and bad results. However, I think the end analysis will show it was good for us in the long term. Had the federalists not eventually won we would probably still have Jim Crow laws. And if we can't get a president and congress to agree on a unified policy, how do you expect 51 states (plus assorted territories) to agree on anything? And if you think federal politicians are corrupt, you should take a look at state politics. Local politics are even worse.


Related Articles
