Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The Constitution is rather open-ended, so unless something is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, the government is theoretically authorized to do it, as long as Congress approves it and the President signs it and the Supreme Court doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional. If anyone else says it’s unconstitutional (like the author you linked in your OP), it really doesn’t matter, since it’s the Supreme Court’s call (and no one else’s).
That's not true. Unless it's granted the authority by the Constitution, it's prohibited from acting in that manner. Why would the Constitution state that the Federal Government can raise and train an army? Shouldn't it have just not said it can't?
Clearly, there are a lot of things that the federal government does without a specific mandate or authorization from the Constitution. Although the Tenth Amendment has been mentioned upthread, some mention should also be given to the Fourteenth Amendment which gives the federal government more authority over the states.
But again, the ultimate arbiter in questions like these would be the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says that something is Constitutional, then that’s what we’re stuck with.
The Bill of Rights mentions several things that the government is prohibited from doing. If what you’re saying is true, then there would be no need for a First Amendment, since the Constitution does not specifically authorize the government to regulate speech or religion. The key phrase is “Congress shall make no law…” The main thing is protecting individual civil and Constitutional rights of the people, which the government can’t violate. But if we’re talking about some other task that doesn’t actually infringe upon anyone’s rights, that would be different.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Better/worse are quite subjective in their meanings. Those long-haired freaky people may have been having sit-ins and other political activist events, but that doesn't mean government is better now since there isn't as much of that.
I’m not saying that government is better now. However, I think that government can be made better when the populace is more vigilant, aware, and actively flexing their civic and electoral muscle. But if the public is passive, apathetic, complacent, ignorant, and easily manipulated, then the government will reflect that.
The author of the article here seems to saying that Congress is the problem, suggesting that they abandoned their prerogative and left the mechanisms of power in the hands of the administrative state. He seems to be saying that this has made government worse since 1965, which is about the same time that those long-haired freaky people’s political activism started going into high gear, along with the Civil Rights movement and other activist causes. I was just wondering if there was any correlation between the rise of political activism in the 1960s and Congress “joining in the fun” of implementing the administrative state which the author seems to clearly abhor.
In other words, do we have an administrative state today because the public wanted it? Or is the administrative state the government’s response to counter the rise of political activism?
Moreover, is this even a political issue at all? Haven’t both parties contributed equally to the rise of the administrative state? I don’t see where either side has any room to talk in criticizing the other over the issue of limited government.
Furthermore, I’m finding myself growing more skeptical whenever a political faction tries to claim ownership of America’s Founding Fathers or tries to make it seem like they’re more faithful and true to the Constitution than the other faction. We can’t just look at the Founding Fathers either, since America has changed and embraced new ideals and principles since then, while abandoning some, but not all, of the ideals held by the Founding Fathers. As I mentioned above, the Civil War changed how we govern this country and, in my opinion, is a far more monumental event in shaping America as we know it today, as opposed to the Republic established by the Founding Fathers.
< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 12/4/2013 4:46:31 AM >
|
RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread