I know that many of you on here aren’t fond of social contracts, but this article is pretty interesting and exciting to me. I feel like it will make the government do less, perhaps even tax less, but we’ll see as time goes by.
It seems a great idea to me. Things will have to be more explicit from now on.
“I think it’s entirely cosmetic,” said Kevin Gutzman, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University who said he is a conservative libertarian and sympathizes with the tea party.
Bingo! Explicit rights of secession would seem the best shot one has, at least to me.
No offense, but you’ve got to be kidding me. Reading the Constitution aloud is going to do… what, exactly? And bills are already justified on Constitutional merits. Even ObamaCare was justified on the basis of the Three Bad Clauses: the interstate-commerce clause, the general-welfare clause, and the necessary-and-proper clause. These people either don’t get it or they’re being disingenuous. Nearly anything can already be justified by the Constitution. Promoting adherence to it is a red herring.
I agree with both you and Gutzman (whose book I’ve read). But such rights are found nowhere explicitly in the Constitution. That’s why the Unionists felt justified when they conducted that military invasion of the Confederacy known otherwise as “the Civil War”.
Republican’s claim of Constitutionality if laughable. I’ll guarantee you that H.R. 1 coming out of this congress will contain numerous unconstitutional provisions. They violated their own recent pledge to follow the Constitution before the ink was even dry:
I suspect you’re right. Any justification to the general-welfare clause and necessary-and-proper clause should be stricken down anyways, considering how most bills emphasizing these points ultimately backfire in one way or another.
Sure, that’s why it needs to be spelled out clearly and, indeed, to be the only provision of the constitution.