4 ms·

>... a big list of freedoms & protections you have, with the assumption that government otherwise has unlimited authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumer

>... a big list of freedoms & protections you have, with the assumption that government otherwise has unlimited authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat... I won't disagree that this is largely how things work in practice, but I'd add the caveat that this practice is a dishonest interpretation on the part of the legislators. There are specific powers enumerated to the Federal government. Individual states have their own constitutional restrictions.

inopinatus 5y ago
Yes, that's definitely a tension. The unstated reason is that if you don't write that in specifically, then national government has default unmitigated power. Those clauses are a reaction to that fundamental American expectation of all governments, as informed by the experience vs the British. And indeed they don't work, they just lead to creative workarounds; in the rare event that it can't find a foothold on any existing or implied power, then national government will enable regional and local government, or private interests, to do what it wanted instead.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Given that mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps violate even the stated limitations, I'm left with the question of whether constitutional protections can restrain government? Plato's five regimes describe a cycle of degeneration which may be inherent to the human condition. Constitutional protections are only as good as the legislator's and judicial branch's will to honor them. A fig leaf which has little bearing on the underlying incentives.
salawat 5y ago
Quite the opposite, actually. Originally there were three buckets. Feds do it, States do it, People do it. There is also an implied negative version of said bucket. Government explicitly CANNOT do. Anything not explicitly enumerated for the Feds, or denied to the Feds, and not explicitly delegated to the States or denied to the States falls into the bucket of the People. Never shall something move from one bucket to another except by legislative action. This goes for either direction. This results in the "tyranny in 3 Acts" state of affairs where since no one has the stomach for a good ole purging of Federal/regulations over time, or using sunset dates by default, our legal code has become a minefield/cornucopia of selective enforcement justifications for the ambitious prosecutor. Lincoln, I think, said it best; and I think it is best to let his words stand for themselves. The speech of interest is his Lyceum Address, and I cannot recommend a full read highly enough. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.... Say what you will about the times, I find it extremely difficult to be dismissive of the essential points of that speech. If the Temple of Liberty burns, it is because we have grown so overly complacent as to have put the torch to it. We have neglected the stone edifice of reason, erected a temple of sticks out of expediency, and burned it.

inopinatus 5y ago

Yes, that's definitely a tension. The unstated reason is that if you don't write that in specifically, then national government has default unmitigated power. Those clauses are a reaction to that fundamental American expectation of all governments, as informed by the experience vs the British. And indeed they don't work, they just lead to creative workarounds; in the rare event that it can't find a foothold on any existing or implied power, then national government will enable regional and local government, or private interests, to do what it wanted instead.

aww_dang 5y ago
Given that mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps violate even the stated limitations, I'm left with the question of whether constitutional protections can restrain government? Plato's five regimes describe a cycle of degeneration which may be inherent to the human condition. Constitutional protections are only as good as the legislator's and judicial branch's will to honor them. A fig leaf which has little bearing on the underlying incentives.

salawat 5y ago

Quite the opposite, actually. Originally there were three buckets. Feds do it, States do it, People do it. There is also an implied negative version of said bucket. Government explicitly CANNOT do. Anything not explicitly enumerated for the Feds, or denied to the Feds, and not explicitly delegated to the States or denied to the States falls into the bucket of the People. Never shall something move from one bucket to another except by legislative action. This goes for either direction. This results in the "tyranny in 3 Acts" state of affairs where since no one has the stomach for a good ole purging of Federal/regulations over time, or using sunset dates by default, our legal code has become a minefield/cornucopia of selective enforcement justifications for the ambitious prosecutor. Lincoln, I think, said it best; and I think it is best to let his words stand for themselves. The speech of interest is his Lyceum Address, and I cannot recommend a full read highly enough. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.... Say what you will about the times, I find it extremely difficult to be dismissive of the essential points of that speech. If the Temple of Liberty burns, it is because we have grown so overly complacent as to have put the torch to it. We have neglected the stone edifice of reason, erected a temple of sticks out of expediency, and burned it.