PAT MATHEWS wrote:
Someone on FourthTurning came up with a very sensible idea. It was
that the only time the federal government should interfere with state
law is if the state is violating the Bill of Rights. (This does not
restrict the power of the feds to regulate air traffic, public
health, etc...we're talking about laws affecting individual
liberties.) And that every Constitutional amendment from #1 on down
should carry the proviso, now used for the newest ones, that "the
Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment."
Works for me. But would it require a constitutional amendment to
retroactively add those words to the amendments that do not explicitly
have them?
I have no problem with this, but it doesn't address the greater
problem - an executive that considers himself above the bill of rights
and possibly, with its new justices, a Supreme Court that might agree
with him.
No, but it gets the structure in place. As for the situation you
describe, it's for the people to turn him out (in 2008) and the Congress
to put a leash on him and the opposition party to come up with better
arguments and ideas in order to do so.
Of course, the brilliance of the two-term Presidency will do that for
us, but what remains to be seen is whether the country figures out that
keeping his ilk in power for four, eight, twelve more years (about as
long as it'll take to completely end the American Experiment).
I wonder which "state" will receive the most attention on Tuesday
evening. The one whose population almost elected him once and barely did
a second time, or the one that he invaded without provocation?
I'm not taking any bets, because I'm fairly certain it's the latter.
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
