3 ms·
What you’re saying is essentially “imagine a government with the power to create laws that allow arbitrary imprisonment with no recourse, that would be tyrannic
by wbsss4412 5y ago
What you’re saying is essentially “imagine a government with the power to create laws that allow arbitrary imprisonment with no recourse, that would be tyrannical”, which, yes, but that only has to do with the currency because that’s what you chose for your example.
Said government could pass a law stating that all citizens must be in two places at once, and achieve the same effect.
- thegrimmest 5y agoAs mentioned in a previous comment, I'm saying "Imagine a government without broad power over general welfare". This was the US government until 1936 with United States v. Butler. I don't think it would be a catastrophe to reverse this decision again. It seems that in spite of best efforts, the US has failed to preserve the very meaning of liberty, as it was initially envisioned, from total deterioration even in its very definition.
- wbsss4412 5y agoThe material distinction when the United States was founded wasn’t whether the state in general had broad power over the general welfare, but whether the federal government would. State government did have such power.
- bcrosby95 5y agoYep. The bill of rights didn't even broadly apply to the states until the 20th century. Have fun with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...