[Mind-numbed Robot]

Take property laws for example, the founders would have looked at the Constitution and seen that they did not have a right to act in that area because it wasn't mentioned. Today's political leaders look at the Constitution and see that their involvment is not explicitly forbidden and so they act.

It is a fine intellectual point to guess about but is unable to be settled because it is surmising actions in the future.

It is my opinion that usurping powers not mentioned is easier than usurping powers that are strictly prohibited, especially for today's leftists.

Part of their strategy is confusing the language through linguistic twists while simultaneously confusing values through political correctness, affirmative action, feminism, etc. When values and the meaning of words are ambiguous and ever changing then assuming a different meaning for something that has been understood and accepted for 200 years is easier. That allows for passing unconstitutional laws and that unconstitutional decisions by liberal judges are more likely to stand. No need to go through the cumbersome process of getting the approval of the American people by Constitutional Amendment.

[tpaine]

No Secrets Here: Federalist Society Plots In the Open
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742273/posts?page=8


The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies started with a group of conservative and libertarian law professors and students in the Midwest and elsewhere who believe in limited government, separation of powers and, as stated in their intellectual battle slogan, that:

"-- the province and duty of the judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it should be. --"


Hmmm, --- seems to be the same message
that Bailyn is putting out. -- Two bits he's a Federalist member.