Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The best way to answer that is to accept the libertarian presumption of the > Founders that if there was any reasonable doubt concerning whether a power > had been delegated, or, equivalently, whether an individual has an immunity, > or right against the affirmative action of government, the decision must > always be made against the power and in favor of the immunity. The refrain > should be, "quo warranto", and that should seek an unbroken logical chain of > authority from the applicable constitution, either from a provision of it or > a lack thereof.
I'm not sure that I see a libertarian presumption on the part of the Founders. This is one of the great disputes about this period: should the civic republicanism sentiment or the individualist/libertarian sentiment be regarded as the presumption? I see a lot more civic republicanism in play than libertarian sentiment. There's certainly some presumption in support of free markets, but they aren't rigidly in that direction. There is a definite move towards more freedom than under British colonial rule, but that's not libertarian in the modern sense of the word. Clayton E. Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.claytoncramer.com Being a citizen of the Republic is not a spectator sport.
