By what method are we to determine a bill’s Constitutionality? Does the 13th Amendment forbid conscription? Should we go the the understanding of the ratifiers?
Who lays out a consistent method on this?
The constitution is an agreement under which terms the subjects accept to be ruled. If the subjects determine that the agreement has been broken, the rule is no longer legitimate.
The U.S. Constitution is a contract among states, which supposedly represent soviegn people. But how are the states (armed with the power of state nullification) to judge a bill’s constitutionality?
Technically speaking, as a legal document, the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted explicitly. There aren’t supposed to be any implicit powers nor is it a “living” document.
a contract between things that dont exist and cant be parties to contracts is a funny old thing.
I thinking of things like the 13th Amendment.
States exist, unfortunately.
oh ,really? how did they come into existance?
As houses or organizations that acquired a monopoly on jurisdiction.
so far so good. next questiom.
did they do this legitamately?
It seems to me that it’s pretty clear what the 13th Amendment doesn’t allow - all involuntary servitude except incarceration. That ban would include conscription.
What difference does it make? They did it.
we are talking about the legitmacy of a contract, if the contract is between ogranisations that are illegitimate, so much for the their contracts
A contract involves only the organizations that are party to it. If the constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, then it involves only those parties. It doesn’t concern you.
a written constitution is a stupid idea that obviously doesn’t work. what sane person could extrapolate the body of constitutional law from the text of the constitution? because what we are ruled by today is a body of constitutional law, within which congress passes laws, within which regulatory bodies pass regulations. The relation to the constitution requires rationalizations.
“Constitution” just means the structure of the forms of government. If it is identical to the actual structure it is superfluous. If it is different it is meaningless. The only possible use is prevent condition 1 going to condition 2. But the american people have shown NO interest in actually using it for that.
if the contract is an excuse or a justification in the furtherance of illegal actions against me and people i care about then perhaps it does concern me… neh?
How? You can’t change it.
Mises’ motto seems to be getting more than the usual forum action theses days.
Who said that?
Like the necessary and proper clause?
What about the original intent of the ratifiers?