From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PAT wrote:
Someone on FourthTurning came up with a very sensible idea. It was that
the only time the federal government should interfere with state law is if
the state is violating the Bill of Rights. (This does not restrict the
power of the feds to regulate air traffic, public health, etc...we're
talking about laws affecting individual liberties.) And that every
Constitutional amendment from #1 on down should carry the proviso, now
used for the newest ones, that "the Congress shall have the power to
enforce this amendment."
I have no problem with this, but it doesn't address the greater problem -
an executive that considers himself above the bill of rights and possibly,
with its new justices, a Supreme Court that might agree with him.
No, but it gets the structure in place. As for the situation you describe,
it's for the people to turn him out (in 2008) and the Congress to put a
leash on him and the opposition party to come up with better arguments and
ideas in order to do so.
"Trust the political process until freedom of speech is formally done away
with."
Living in a fantasy world - you say that like it's a bad thing.
Or, because I have ideals does that make me a starry-eyed idealist?
Depends on whether your ideals come out of a one-size-fits-all theory or are
subject to practical reason. Not what's in your eyes, but where your feet
are?
Pat
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
