-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
As a strict Constitutionalist (I'm making an assumption that
you consider yourself as one...), you favor a small government,
I presume. At least, one that does not abrogate to itself any
rights that are not delegated to it. That is an attractive
idea... and I won't belabor this point..but I think that you
must take into consideration the changed nature of American
social, economic, political, cultural realities... We (as a
nation) have moved from being thirteen states to a global
empire (superpower) of today.
MJ:
The Constitution has been 'circumvented' for more than a hundred
years (possibly since its inception) ... it is impossible
to assume that the SAME results we are currently burdened would
have been produced under 'actual constitutional conditions'.
There is a legitimate method for CHANGING those powers, you know. :)
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
Since I assume that you are a student of history, I think
a comparison with Greece and Rome is in order...... Clearly,
we are in the "empire" phase, wouldn't you agree? Whether you
or I like this...is somewhat irrelevant. If we could turn
back the clock to the eighteenth century....or perhaps, the
early nineteenth century....we would find the US of A being
quite different in terms of its demographics, degree of
industrialization, extent of commercial development.. The
need for laws, social cooperation, social cohesiveness was
minimal....wouldn't you agree? But now look at the country!
It is a very very different place, isn't it? We have gone
the way of empire....westward expansion...seizing more land,
placing more individuals under the power of our government.
Do I approve? Well, what is the typical fate of empires?
But, on the other hand, if we had not expanded, there are
arguments to be made that we would still be under British
rule. At least, so goes the argument for the westward
expansion..
MJ:
I reassert my above claim -- this becomes which caused what
ideal. Are we where we are because we overstepped ... or did
we overstep to prevent worse. I vote the first.
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
And if we are to speak in terms of property and liberty....of
course, our national government legally (via a series of
treaties) seized enormous chunks of territory in order to
expand.... So, expansion is very much part of the American
temperament.. We went through a period in our national
history when we wanted our "lebensraum".... But as we
expanded and became a global empire, new realities have
come into play. Hence the government must deal with problems
the original government never faced..
MJ:
Yes, that is why we have ...
Article V which provides for the sole mechanisms for changing
the Constitution, thus the sole mechanism for changing the
powers of government. It reads, in pertinent part; "The
Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the
several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which in either Case, shall be valid to all intents and
Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by
the legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
other Mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
The Constitution allows two and only two ways to change its
ends, its powers; that of Amendment and that of Convention.
Changes to the Constitution must be made openly by the State
Legislatures or State Conventions and are not left to the
federal government. Congress, the President and his underlings,
and/or the supreme Court are NOT empowered to change the
Constitutional ends of government IN ANY WAY. Only the
State legislatures vote on Amendments which Congress writes.
If Congress is unwilling to draw up the Amendment as the
States request, or at all, the States have full authority
to call for and send delegates to a Convention. Only the
State Conventions or the State Legislatures vote on the
Amendments.
Certainly avoiding the WHIMS which have placed us in our current
predicament.
Regard$,
--MJ
In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security.
When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for
society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was
freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.
-- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
