Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Col Sanders

I figure that government may be the answer, but that should be rare, and practically the founders had it pretty close to right with the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

I would repeal the 16th amendment, myself, but would add put an amendment to put the commerce clause back to it pre FDR status.

I would further extend liberty by amendment to protect rights from infringement by US states. I believe this was an intent of the 14th amendment, but the SCOTUS interpreted that out fairly quickly.


33 posted on 12/25/2006 8:04:51 PM PST by donmeaker (If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy!" then my ex wife is out of town.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: donmeaker
I figure that government may be the answer, but that should be rare, and practically the founders had it pretty close to right with the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The only question to which government should be the answer is "who protects the individual?" This was the vision the founders had and sought to construct with the Constitution. Unfortunately, certain among them demanded and were awarded a "bill of rights" leaving us with the hair-splitting idiocy that came with it. Does this right exist? Does that right exist? We have entire generations of people out there who believe the Constitution gives them rights.

I would repeal the 16th amendment, myself, but would add put an amendment to put the commerce clause back to it pre FDR status.

I would do the same, but scrap the commerce clause altogether. I would also remove the Bill of Rights and add a clause to the preamble that defines the document as "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden". If there is no defined power allowing the federal government to create laws around speech or religion, then they cannot. If there is no defined power to tax an individual, then they cannot.

I would further extend liberty by amendment to protect rights from infringement by US states. I believe this was an intent of the 14th amendment, but the SCOTUS interpreted that out fairly quickly.

I would leave that to the states, personally. If a state has insufficient protection of the individual, the productive among them will quickly migrate to the state where they're better protected leaving the offender to perish under their own dead weight. This was the original design. What we have now is that so many things are "regulated" at the federal level leaving those of us who wish to be left alone very few places to run and hide.

Regards,

Col Sanders

48 posted on 12/25/2006 8:15:52 PM PST by Col Sanders (I ought to tear your no-good Goddang preambulatory bone frame, and nail it to your government walls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson