Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
[SNIP]
What, 20% of the population takes antidepressants? I wonder how they survived before the advent of modern medicine.
|
Cite, please? I'd be thoroughly shocked if the percentage was anywhere near that high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
[SNIP again]
The rest is only true if you believe that government has only the rights written on some document back in the 1700s. Honestly, your constitution is becoming like the bible: not of these times. Later changes introduced through congress are legitimate, you know.
[and SNIP to the end]
|
I can't speak for Harmon, but the basic premise of American government and society is that the Federal government has
exactly and only the powers granted it by way of the constitution -- and
no rights whatsoever!
As for "later changes introduced through congress" being legitimate -- that's certainly true for Amendments to the Constitution. Things that are
merely bills passed by the congress, however, have a much lower status. If the Congress (or the people, for that matter) doesn't like some limitation placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution there's a straight forward method laid out for making changes. We've even done so 27 times to date, as recently as 1992.
And if those who desire a change can't get said change through the process, that seems like a clear sign that the people of the US do not, in fact, intend for the government to have whatever power the would-be changers were attempting to get. That's happened plenty of times, too.
The Constitution is clearly a living document, in the sense that there's a procedure for editing it. My main regret (personally) is that since WWII the courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- have re-interpreted broadly rather than telling the other branches to go get an amendment through if they don't like being shot down by the court. There's a ton of constitutionally dodgy stuff that really should have required amending the constitution -- just start with the "war on drugs" and many of the laws passed to enable same*, then look at... but that's a rant for another day.
Xenophon
* I note that last time we decided to outlaw a class of substances at the Federal level, we passed a Constitutional Amendment to do so -- and then passed another one when we decided we were wrong. I fail to see what is so different about the various "illegal substances" being fought in the "war on drugs" that they can be outlawed without a similar amendment. But, of course, I am not a lawyer...