This trend toward prescriptive behaviour is a direct result of abandoning the Rule of law for a “Law” of Rules.
– commenter R. Richard Schweitzer
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayNovember 15th, 2009 |
 4 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Create a need; and, fill it.
With enough rules, it’s a matter of who says.
Pretty much the same as with no rules at all.
From negative law (what the government can’t do to you) to positive law (what you must do for the government). The US Constitution is negative law and that’s what Obama thinks is wrong with it.
“The US Constitution is negative law.”
Er, no actually, that’s not strictly true. The first ten amendments to the constitution are negative laws, but those aside, the constitution is all about what the government can do (see especially Article One, Section Eight). Of course Hamilton and his mates could not have envisaged how “broadly” the congressional powers would be interpreted in the decades and centuries to come.
I distrust all this lark about “restoring the constitution” like it’s some holy writ of God without serious flaw.
“‘The US Constitution is negative law.’
Er, no actually, that’s not strictly true. The first ten amendments to the constitution are negative laws, but those aside, the constitution is all about what the government can do. . .”
The first five articles do describe what the Federal government can do, however the whole point of that description in 5 articles is to enumerate the powers of the government. “These are the things this government is empowered to do, no more.”
We’re not supposed to have to go through the constitution and Supreme Court Decisions to figure out what the Federal government is nto supposed to be able to do, but look through the Constitution to ensure that government is only doing what it is allowed to do.
That is the principle of limited government, why the Constitution is said to be one of enumerated powers, why the incredible flexible, infinitely stretchable commerce clause should be spayed, why tenth amendment issues are so important, and why there is a valid and important (for everyone’s freedoms) to find some point at which the Constitution can be returned to a state more like its origins, when limited government wasn’t a mere pious hope, honored more in the breach than in the observance.
KentuckyLiz, that’s “Ask not what your government can’t do to you, but ask what you have to do for your government.’