5 ms·

In addition to this, I meant that OP's assertion implied there is a commonly agreed upon list of core responsibilities assigned to the federal government. Prac

by pnut 11y ago

In addition to this, I meant that OP's assertion implied there is a commonly agreed upon list of core responsibilities assigned to the federal government. Practically all of the major political battles ongoing today in America are to clarify the proper scope and function of government. Healthcare, taxation, voting rights, abortion, religious liberty, on and on and on. It has been going on since the Revolutionary War, and will never reach consensus. Here's another opinion - The constitution is a starting point, not a recipe book.

mason240 11y ago
The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  Politicians are pretty clear in their POV that the Constitution is a bother to be worked around, so there's realistically no point in going down the path you've chosen.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Why wasn't there an equivalent of the 18th Amendment in order to allow the drug prohibition?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Because drugs were already illegal? You could perhaps argue that they shouldn't have been illegal, constitutionally. But, IIRC, they were, and so new change was required to start the war on drugs. It was just "we're going to get serious about stopping this stuff".
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      This doesn't really make sense. If that arrangement had made legal sense for opiates, marijuana, etc. it would have made legal sense for alcohol. In fact it was perfectly legal to distribute, purchase, and use those in numerous places through at least 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed. Even that Act attempted to finesse the issue by limiting imports rather than just outlawing the substances directly. The Volstead Act didn't go in for such half-measures, because it had the backing of the Constitution. Neither Harrison nor any of its successors could say that. Frankly, I was mostly attempting to engage with mason240's rather strict legal philosophy in a way that would cause most strict constructionists some discomfort.
gwright 11y ago
The US Constitution is, without dispute, constructed as a whitelist of enumerated powers for the federal government along with a blacklist of prohibited actions that constrain even those enumerated powers. You can't really understand many constitutional debates without understanding this core formulation of the U.S. Constitution. Attempts to interpret the whitelist in such a way that it effectively becomes "allow anything" is a good way of understanding the criticisms of expansive federal programs. Similar attempts to minimize the blacklist portion is a good way of understanding the criticism of expansive police and military programs (i.e. war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc.)
- emodendroket 11y ago
  That's not really "without dispute" at all. From the very beginning there was dispute about what things the federal government should do, and the Constitution is open-ended enough to allow quite different interpretations.
  - gwright 11y ago
    You seem to be making a category error. The overall logical structure of the Constitution is something categorically different than the nature of the enumerated powers or of the prohibitions listed in the bill of rights. My use of "without dispute" is in regard to that overall logical structure and I do believe that the structure is quite clear and does not lend itself to 'quite different interpretations'. Of course the appropriate interpretation of particular enumerated powers is often debated as well as what the "federal government should do", but that is not what I was referring to with "without dispute".

by pnut 11y ago

mason240 11y ago

The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.

oldmanjay 11y ago
Politicians are pretty clear in their POV that the Constitution is a bother to be worked around, so there's realistically no point in going down the path you've chosen.
jessaustin 11y ago
Why wasn't there an equivalent of the 18th Amendment in order to allow the drug prohibition?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Because drugs were already illegal? You could perhaps argue that they shouldn't have been illegal, constitutionally. But, IIRC, they were, and so new change was required to start the war on drugs. It was just "we're going to get serious about stopping this stuff".
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    This doesn't really make sense. If that arrangement had made legal sense for opiates, marijuana, etc. it would have made legal sense for alcohol. In fact it was perfectly legal to distribute, purchase, and use those in numerous places through at least 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed. Even that Act attempted to finesse the issue by limiting imports rather than just outlawing the substances directly. The Volstead Act didn't go in for such half-measures, because it had the backing of the Constitution. Neither Harrison nor any of its successors could say that. Frankly, I was mostly attempting to engage with mason240's rather strict legal philosophy in a way that would cause most strict constructionists some discomfort.

gwright 11y ago

The US Constitution is, without dispute, constructed as a whitelist of enumerated powers for the federal government along with a blacklist of prohibited actions that constrain even those enumerated powers. You can't really understand many constitutional debates without understanding this core formulation of the U.S. Constitution. Attempts to interpret the whitelist in such a way that it effectively becomes "allow anything" is a good way of understanding the criticisms of expansive federal programs. Similar attempts to minimize the blacklist portion is a good way of understanding the criticism of expansive police and military programs (i.e. war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc.)

emodendroket 11y ago
That's not really "without dispute" at all. From the very beginning there was dispute about what things the federal government should do, and the Constitution is open-ended enough to allow quite different interpretations.
- gwright 11y ago
  You seem to be making a category error. The overall logical structure of the Constitution is something categorically different than the nature of the enumerated powers or of the prohibitions listed in the bill of rights. My use of "without dispute" is in regard to that overall logical structure and I do believe that the structure is quite clear and does not lend itself to 'quite different interpretations'. Of course the appropriate interpretation of particular enumerated powers is often debated as well as what the "federal government should do", but that is not what I was referring to with "without dispute".