3 ms·

That's not true at all. The Constitution only enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and quite clearly states that the government only has those p

That's not true at all. The Constitution only enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and quite clearly states that the government only has those powers. The Constitution has since been "interpreted" to mean that the government can do whatever it wants if it thinks it has a really good reason e.g. "the bill of rights is not a suicide pact", but that's not really a flaw with the text of the Constitution.

mindslight 2y ago
This only applies to the part of my argument/example about the nominal government overstepping, while not addressing the larger phenomenon of parallel governance structures being created independently of the nominal government.
- gweinberg 2y ago
  Ok, but the Constitution doesn't authorize such a parallel government, and it's hard to see what any constitution could do to prevent one. Really, the only way constitutional government can have any chance of working is if a pretty fair percentage of people in power actual care about constitutional government for its own sake. Otherwise they'll just do as seems expedient.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    The Constitution fails to prohibit parallel government. Obviously, doing so could not prevent wholesale replacement of the Constitution and US government, but it would prevent the current situation where we've got parallel extraconstitutional government while the Constitution is still in legal force and supposed to be defining our rights. Parallel governance could be prohibited through a positive definition of rights applying to any actor that might infringe (similar to say, the prohibitions regarding homicide). This would allow for a straightforward balancing of equity between conflicting rights, rather than the current "axiomatic" approach where any given right tends to be found to apply fully or not at all.
readthenotes1 2y ago
If the intent of the Constitution was to enumerate the rights granted by the citizens to its government and keep those limited, then there should have been a bit more careful wording in "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" since that can be interpreted to mean just about anything...
- gweinberg 2y ago
  They were more careful. "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is a justification for the enumerated powers. The enumerated powers were much more specific like To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; The so-called "elastic clause" is the one that reads "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". Which can indeed be read fairly expansively, particularly if you ignore the clear and explicit intent to keep government power circumscribed. But there isn't anything anywhere near as ridiculous as a power to promote the general welfare as such.

mindslight 2y ago

This only applies to the part of my argument/example about the nominal government overstepping, while not addressing the larger phenomenon of parallel governance structures being created independently of the nominal government.

gweinberg 2y ago
Ok, but the Constitution doesn't authorize such a parallel government, and it's hard to see what any constitution could do to prevent one. Really, the only way constitutional government can have any chance of working is if a pretty fair percentage of people in power actual care about constitutional government for its own sake. Otherwise they'll just do as seems expedient.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The Constitution fails to prohibit parallel government. Obviously, doing so could not prevent wholesale replacement of the Constitution and US government, but it would prevent the current situation where we've got parallel extraconstitutional government while the Constitution is still in legal force and supposed to be defining our rights. Parallel governance could be prohibited through a positive definition of rights applying to any actor that might infringe (similar to say, the prohibitions regarding homicide). This would allow for a straightforward balancing of equity between conflicting rights, rather than the current "axiomatic" approach where any given right tends to be found to apply fully or not at all.

readthenotes1 2y ago

If the intent of the Constitution was to enumerate the rights granted by the citizens to its government and keep those limited, then there should have been a bit more careful wording in "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" since that can be interpreted to mean just about anything...

gweinberg 2y ago
They were more careful. "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is a justification for the enumerated powers. The enumerated powers were much more specific like To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; The so-called "elastic clause" is the one that reads "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". Which can indeed be read fairly expansively, particularly if you ignore the clear and explicit intent to keep government power circumscribed. But there isn't anything anywhere near as ridiculous as a power to promote the general welfare as such.