🚀 go-pugleaf

In <32bb114f.7200512@news.nothinbut.net>, wwatts@nothinbut.net (Bill Watts) writes:
>jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:

>> It's not that you claim rights that aren't expressly mentioned (which
>> you do, BTW), but rather that you claim them in an absolute manner that
>> contradicts specific provisions of the Constitution.

>Are you contending that the constitution explicitly grants 
>rights to the people or, is it a limit on what already individually
>held inalienable rights the government can't interfere with? It 
>is in fact the latter point that is more correct. The only thing 
>the constitution grants is limited and specific power to the 
>federal government not, contrary to your contentions, limited 
>and specific rights to individuals.

The radical right always seems to want to misconstrue the 
statements of (what I consider to be) moderates.

J. Adams said that B. Watts claimed rights "in an absolute 
manner that contradicts specific provisions of the Constitution."
In response B. Watts states that "The only thing the constitution 
grants is limited and specific power to the federal government not, 
contrary to your contentions, limited and specific rights to 
individuals."

What B. Watts says is undoubtedly true, but it does not contradict 
what J. Adams says.  For example, the Constitution expressly grants
to Congress the power to tax.  It is nonsensical to claim that there
is an implicit, inalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" that
negates the power of Congress to tax.  That would subject the express
provisions of the Constitution to the whims of the judiciary, which is 
the last thing I would expect from those who seem to mistrust the 
judicial branch.

The radical right (as represented by B. Watts) seems to want to frame 
the dispute in absolutes, and paint moderates as acting contrary to the 
constitution, while it is always clear that the power of Congress is 
limited by the Constitution, and the only issue worth discussing is 
where those limits lie.  Ariticle I, Section 8, granted powers to 
Congress, and to deny it is a ridiculous waste of time.

>I find it most interesting how easily these arguments frequently 
>fall into either semantical and/or, it said so, didn't say so,
>technical (mis)interpretations when separated from the intent and
>spirit of the law and constitution. There are no semantical or
>technical arguments to be made when one understands the 
>spirit and intent of the founding fathers and the constitution as
>expressed in their writings. 

However, you can't talk about the "spirit and intent" of the 
drafters of the Constitution and ignore what they wrote.

(BTW, there is an interesting body of evidence that
the founding fathers never intended that we should interpret the 
constitution based on their intentions.  The idea that constitutions
or statutes should be interpreted by the intentions of the drafters
is a 20th Century idea not shared by the members of the 
Constitutional Convention.  If they had thought about it, they would
have assumed that the constitution would be interpreted based
on an objective understanding of the words they used, not a 
subjective understanding of what they intended.  To try to 
determine the "spirit and intent" of the founding fathers is
a futile exercise, because they never intended you to know or 
follow what they intended.)

Dan Evans ************************
http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
This is not a legal opinion unless     
you agreed to pay for it. 
**********************************