tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post7584985535276790132..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Perilous Ambiguities in the ConstitutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-30317844970487502872009-09-23T12:08:05.732-04:002009-09-23T12:08:05.732-04:00Notwithstanding Ed's excellent analysis, Dan H...Notwithstanding Ed's excellent analysis, Dan Hannan, the British MEP [Conservative] gives his view on the US Constitution-<br />"The most sublime constitution ever drafted... "<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/mxst97Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-13659183140246048872009-09-18T11:53:56.306-04:002009-09-18T11:53:56.306-04:00I believe it was the great moral philosopher Grouc...I believe it was the great moral philosopher Groucho Marx who asked, "Why can't people just leave other people alone?" The only world where that could happen would be one that respected liberty and property rights, as a start. The Constitution was a great step in that direction. But in today's context I question the utility of proving that it means this or that. The statists that currently educate and run our country would merely say, "OK. You've proved that the Constitution is a document that defends liberty and property rights, essentially by limiting government. Let's scrap it."Slade Calhounnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-24025520509459640952009-09-18T07:55:07.739-04:002009-09-18T07:55:07.739-04:00Anonymous asked: "Amphioxus? Amphigorous perh...Anonymous asked: "Amphioxus? Amphigorous perhaps?" <br /><br />To convey the destructiveness of their ambiguity (the terms general welfare and regulate), that it's one or the other or even both, and that by being employed by statists, they as sanctions assumed a dagger-like sharpness. I chose "amphioxus." "Amphigorous," on the other hand, would have implied the terms were nonsensical, which they certainly are not, but are to be taken very seriously as sanctions for statists to govern one's life.<br /><br />Ed<br /><br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-20791930764516895312009-09-18T00:00:32.233-04:002009-09-18T00:00:32.233-04:00amphioxus? amphigorous perhaps?amphioxus? amphigorous perhaps?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-44978759652561031832009-09-16T19:47:26.834-04:002009-09-16T19:47:26.834-04:00Tom noted: "This is an excellent article but ...Tom noted: "This is an excellent article but I Think the Author should read "Hamilton's Curse". The commerce clause and the general welfare clause were no accident. Hamilton and others craftfully had those inserted like ticking time bombs that were later exploded by John Marshall. The Constitution needs to go."<br /><br />I have read sections of "Hamilton's Curse" during slow times at the Colonial Williamsburg booksignings, and know about Hamilton's ploy. My focus, however, was not on Hamilton's machinations, but on the phraseology. From that one could ask "why?" and induce the ploy, but to have covered all that ground would have meant a 20-page post, which I was not ready to tackle (or even want to begin except as a short treatise). But, thanks to Patrick Henry and others, we at least got a Bill of Rights which, for a while, checked the growth of federal powers.<br /><br />It's also my thesis (or suspicion) that Jefferson was appointed ambassador to France to get him out of the way of the Convention, but have not found any correspondence that would allow one to use that thesis as an argument. I'm sure that if he had attended the Convention, the AoC would have remained in force and the Convention would have adjourned in acrimony. <br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-62117910632504394482009-09-16T18:36:04.665-04:002009-09-16T18:36:04.665-04:00Roxanne, many people confuse what "the founde...Roxanne, many people confuse what "the founders" actually means. In fact, the people who signed the Declaration of Independence (which stands for individual rights) were NOT the same people who drafted the constitution.<br /><br />The constitutional convention started out as simply a reform of the Articles of Confederation, but Alexander Hamilton and others made a push to completely scrap the AoC and invent a new government. Hamilton then proposed the same government as England except the King would be appointed by congress. <br /><br />The usurpation of power and loss of individual rights so disgusted the original 50+ members of the convention that about 20 of them left and went home claiming that their states would never sign this new document. Unfortunately the PR campaign of Madison and Hamilton fooled people into believing the new constitution was built for freedom.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992382782551700930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-88483405304129475442009-09-16T18:32:00.459-04:002009-09-16T18:32:00.459-04:00This is an excellent article but I Think the Autho...This is an excellent article but I Think the Author should read "Hamilton's Curse". The commerce clause and the general welfare clause were no accident. Hamilton and others craftfully had those inserted like ticking time bombs that were later exploded by John Marshall. The Constitution needs to go.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992382782551700930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-15521808300563226082009-09-16T17:32:13.581-04:002009-09-16T17:32:13.581-04:00Thank you for shining your intellectual beam on th...Thank you for shining your intellectual beam on the Constitution and the two ill-defined phrases that undercut its protection of individual rights. It’s vital that it be understood, and your essay points to what must be dissected intellectually.<br /><br />Excellent your pointing out that Joseph Story's worry over the demolition of the constitutional boundaries between state and federal should also apply to “the demolition of all constitutional boundaries between government and the individual.”<br /><br />It makes me wonder if that concept that the Founders had, that the individual is THE entity to be protected from government by constitutional boundaries, was not well understood even by men who worked with the Founders. <br /><br />RoxanneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-34603568372120849522009-09-16T16:45:05.675-04:002009-09-16T16:45:05.675-04:00Wonderful article Ed! I've been thinking about...Wonderful article Ed! I've been thinking about this issue for a while now. I'm glad to finally find an article as informative and as spot on as this.Joshua Lipanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02016937938024927167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-58664453663634959812009-09-16T16:39:42.845-04:002009-09-16T16:39:42.845-04:00Brilliant.Brilliant.Joshua Lipanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02016937938024927167noreply@blogger.com