Quote:
|
Originally Posted by beyelzu
My point was that our system of government will be fundamentally altered by a strict interpetation of the commerce clause. I am unsure as to the scope of ramifications of this ruling. For example with a strict interpetation of the constitution is the civil rights act of 1964 actually constitutional, I dont think would be and that bothers me. While I think that Jim Crow laws were obviously unconstitutional, having the federal govenment outlaw discrimination is a good thing.
|
I agree. Of course, it was fundamentally altered from its original incarnation as the nation grew and evolved. Nevertheless, it remains a constitutional government. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Without that foundation, fundamental changes in the law occur with the political wind.
New individual rights, or those the founders did not place in the original constitution, have been secured by amending the constitution. They have also been created by disregarding it. Whether the rights secured under the latter method have had a beneficial effect on society in the aggregate or not is clear in some cases, and is open to debate in others. Nevertheless, the beneficial societal ends do not justify the detrimental means of disregarding the constitutional foundation of our nation.
Quote:
uh, I understood that.
I just find it ironic that as the european union moves closer together, we could be moving farther apart. I think that a strict interpetation of the commerce clause would seriously fuck our federal government and would lead to a fracturing of the country along geograpic and cultural lines. I think you would see less monoculture and although some people might think it is a good thing, I am not so sure. Also, although I am a little l libertarian on lots of issues, I dont think that state's rights is the way to go. I mean shit, a strict interpetation of the constitution allows for seccession on the same grounds of states' rights and thus Lincoln fought a war of aggression.
|
Sorry to suggest you didn't understand. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence.
Your observation about the irony of the EU's growing closer vs. our nation's allegedly moving further apart is interesting. I'm not so sure our nation is moving apart.
Please understand that I do not embrace the familiar "state's rights" arguments brought by the likes of George Wallace and Roy Moore. I do not believe they are the necessary implication of a recognition of the doctrine of enumerated powers. I trust that you and others recognize that I am not advocating succession or the return to Jim Crow.
Cool Hand