- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
o wit, the Fourth Amendment is riddled with holes because of the police power and our government’s need to provide for our “general welfare.”
In my view, the general welfare clause has been defiled worse than any other part of the document. Madison was clear about its meaning in Federalist No. 41, but after ratification Hamilton and friends went ahead and stretched its meaning beyond recognition. Thus, I don't believe the federal government is legally authorized to do most of what it does currently.
It's strange to me that you mentioned "police power" because I'm unaware that it's even mentioned in the Constitution. The FBI, for example, is clearly unconstitutional in my view.
At least for me, dialectic is important for personal growth. Thank you for the sparring. It makes me a better man.Speaking of reasonable, well... I’m glad I could help That’s the mark of a reasonable man - you can be reasoned with.
My impression is that the justices are supposed to adjudicate questions as narrowly as is feasible. There's probably a nice Latin term for the principle. I think it's a good principle for multiple reasons.why incorporate “cruel and unusual punishments,” but not “excessive fines?” They’re both part of the same sentence for Christ’s sake.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Personally, I think all rights should all be incorporated unless they explicitly don’t apply against states.
This clearly applies only to Congress, right? It's very clear.
The only way to incorporate this is via a bizarre argument involving the 14th Amendment. @Quipling and I have gotten into this a little before.