than you. And it's not for bleeding heart reasons.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Fun with the Constitution (was RE: More Breaking News)
> Well I think the most noticeable thing is that the congress no longer
> bothers to declare war, hell the executive branch doesn't really even
check
> with congress anymore, and that is a power that is supposed to reside with
> the congress.
>
> I think in many cases (ATF, gun law in general) some of these powers have
> been stretched (interstate commerce) in order to give people loop holes
> through the constitution to grant the government powers they were not
> intended to have.
>
> The idea of the "general welfare" has been used to provide for drug law,
> seat belt initiatives (not a federal law, just an unfunded mandate),
> drinking age mandates, and welfare, education, and a slew of other
programs
> that I think it was not originally intended to cover.
>
> An important piece, I feel, is "shall be uniform throughout the United
> States". As we all know this isn't true. I think that the federal gov't
is
> supposed to make sure that a certain amount of law carries over from state
> to state, yet we know about drug law differences, tax differences and so
> forth. Related to this is the idea of immunities. In VA I can carry a gun
> with a $50 dollar permit. They way I read the constitution this same
permit
> should be good in all 50 states. It's not though.
>
> I think by coming off of the gold standard and giving a lot of currency
> control to the FED we have violated some of these principals, especially
> seeing as the FED is a private organization.
>
> Also the idea of "post roads" has been used to force highways through many
> states and localities that didn't want them, and the federal government
will
> pass the cost of these unfunded roads onto the states, yet demand their
> upkeep. We no longer need post roads.
>
> Copyright and trademark should only be for a limited time. And by limited
I
> mean at most the lifetime of the creator.
>
> To be legalistic we shouldn't have a standing army, and even in time of
war
> it should be pretty much reformed every two years. I think we need an
> amendment on the formation of a standing
> army though.
>
> The militia, AKA the national guard, is supposed to be called up to repel
> foreign invaders and prevent insurrection, not fight wars on foreign soil.
>
> That's my break down. The basics at least. Now if we take that and the
> 10th into account I would have a far longer list.
>
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:36 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Fun with the Constitution (was RE: More Breaking News)
>
>
> I'm curious, how do you feel about Article I, section 8 of the
> Constitution itself? It outlines a number of powers possessed by the
> legislature that the executive branch is compelled to enforce at
> Congress' legislative convenience.
>
> How do Federal institituions depart from these powers, and where do they
> exceed their authority?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:57 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
> Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
> States
> respectively, or to the people.
>
> My read on it is this:
>
> The federal government can only take legislative control over those
> items
> specifically mentioned in the constitution, so long as it hasn't been
> stopped from doing so by the states. Anything else falls either to
> state
> legislation or the people themselves.
>
> The founding fathers could not envision all that is necessary to run a
> modern nation and I think they new with time the government would need
> to
> change and adapt, which is why they built in an amendment process.
> Legislating outside the scope of the constitution, without getting
> approved
> an amendment granting the federal government increased powers,
> specifically
> in your area of interest, is unconstitutional according to my read on
> this.
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
> is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
> _____
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
