---
Posted on 08/30/2002 5:32:48 AM PDT by Bigun
The Republican Party of Texas Platform has been MUCH in the news of late because it is a CONSERVATIVE document and, as such, VERY controversial. I thought it would be an instructive exercise, for those of us who wish to do so here, to go through it plank by plank and see where we stand on these issues. Pursuant to that, I will post ONE plank of the Platform, every few days and anyone who wishes to can state their views as to that particular part of the platform.
Today we move to the subheading Preserving American Freedom:
Limiting the Expanse of Government Power
State Sovereignty/States Rights - The Party supports state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the states or the people all powers not specifically delegated in the Constitution to the federal government and opposes the institution of mandates that are beyond the scope of federal authority.
Previous thread is HERE
(Excerpt) Read more at browncountytexasrepublicanparty.com ...
Nothing with which to disagree so far. My score to this point is 20.
---
With you so far.
Hmmm? I'll let ya know when we get there darlin! ;>)
GEEZ I would hope not!
Pursuant to that however, and as a lawyer yourself, what do you think the word specifically means in this phrase "...all powers not specifically delegated in the Constitution..."
Any court action not withstanding, do YOU thinks that those learned men who framed our Constitution, or any of those bodies of men who ratified it, INTENDED that it contain IMPLIED powers?
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.
The Constitution is an incredibly short document, although a lot is packed into those words. In my opinion, it is a framework of principles which may not be violated. It certainly is not a comprehensive document that tells us exactly what to do in every situation.
In order for that framework to be functional, it's necessary to "fill in the blanks" to address situations where the Consititution is silent. That gives rise to implied powers. As long as those implied powers are consistent with the specific framework in the written Constitution, I have no problem with them, and I don't think those who drafted the Constitution would, either.
It's a matter of perspective. Those who follow the Ron Paul view of the Constitution believe that unless an action is specifically provided for in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional. I think that's silly and unworkable. I think that unless that same action violates either the specific language of the Constitution, or the principles that the language represents, it is constitutional.
There is NO doubt in my mind that the Federal Government has assumed powers which it is not entitled to have under the Constitution. But it does have powers which are consistent with the principles set out in the Constitution, but not specifically listed. (In my opinion, of course.)
Thanks friend!
The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to provide for and maintain a Navy. It failed to mention anything about an Air Force.
The school of thought that would argue that our Founders in 1787 would have specifically provided for an Air Force if they had intended us to have one, has the tougher argument to make, I think.
Does anyone in Texas take #8 seriously? Or is this just thrown in for cosmetic, feel good purposes?
#8.We believe that a strong America ensures a free America. While we recognize that our nation is a major participant in the global community, we must also vigilantly protect the sovereignty of the United States. Freedom is never free, and we honor all those who have served our nation to protect our liberty.
Maybe I should be more specific. Does anyone in Texas take #8 seriously? Or is this just thrown in for cosmetic, feel good purposes?
While we recognize that our nation is a major participant in the global community, we must also vigilantly protect the sovereignty of the United States.
All it would take is an amendment. How many people do you think would not vote for an amendment to allow the Air Force?
I think everyone can agree with those statements, because they don't mean much by themselves. When we get to the planks where #8 is actually applied to policy, you'll see that the state party took it very seriously, indeed.
It's bound to be a controversial thread, and you're certainly invited to be part of the discussion. I know you have strong opinions on the matter.
That would be one way to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.