Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Saturday, September 17, 2005Constitution DaySoapBox Politics has a good post on the Constitution (included are links to all of the articles and summaries thereof). I agree strongly with his quote from Sir William Gladstone, and I think it is the most perfect legal document created to govern a nation that man can create. I am just about as Constitutionalist as it gets (even more than my libertarianism) and think that it should be read extremely strictly with regards to interpretation. It enumerates every power that every branch of government is allowed to have, as well as definitively stating that anything not listed is up to the people and the states to decide.
My only beef with the Constitution is a few of the non-Bill of Rights Amendments (although, I also believe that if it is in there, it should be adhered to). These Amendments are the 12th (changing the election rules of the executive branch), the 16th (allowed income taxes for the first time...the Constitution had previously strictly forbidden it), the 17th (the direct election of Senators, instead of state legislature selection...I have always felt that the Senators were supposed to represent the state interests, and the Reps were supposed to represent the people), the 18th (Prohibition of alcohol, since repealed), the 22nd (Presidential term limits...I am lightly in favor of term limits in general, but I do not think it should be in a Constitution-type document), and the 25th (Presidential succession...my only real problem is that I don't think that a new VP should be selected like that). So, other than those 6 Amendments, I think the Constitution is basically perfect...and most of my problems with these stem more for my preference that things had stayed the way they were (they did not need to be changed). Comments:Sooooo many problems with this post: "I think it is the most perfect legal document created" Make that the greatest achievement of man’s mind, ever. Period. "I am just about as Constitutionalist as it gets (even more than my libertarianism)" I'm not sure strict constructionism and libertarianism mesh. The Constitution glosses over a lot of stuff (right to privacy, anyone?), which is an opening through which constructionalists can (and have) trampled on liberty just as much as the "let's make a bunch of shit up" crowd has. "It enumerates every power that every branch of government is allowed to have" Really just the one... and even then we seem to pay it little heed. "the 12th (changing the election rules of the executive branch)" Are we forgetting something? "I have always felt that the Senators were supposed to represent the state interests" That's a bit... undemocratic, isn't it? Are you honestly suggesting that an entire arm of the federal government should be unaccountable to the people? "my only real problem is that I don't think that a new VP should be selected like that" I see your point, but do we really "elect" the VP now? Or is he just that douchebag who comes along for the ride? Look, I think the Constitution was a great achievement, but it was hardly perfect. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." I should have added that the fact that this serious fault was later corrected hardly makes the document perfect, but it is the best man has done. Richard, The Constitution was written as a document to keep the federal government from interfering with the state government. In that sense, the federal government was to govern the states and the states were to govern the people. Of course, that is not how it is today, but that is how it was supposed to be. I don't think that Constitution really glosses over things like "right to privacy" in that way, as the 9th Amendment states that the people have rights not listed by the people. In addition, the Constitution can always be Amended in order to guarantee a certain right. Just because the Constitution has been abused does not mean that the document itself is worse. As far of branches go, I should have said the federal branches, but I did feel that saying "brances" instead of "levels" implied the federal government. I do realize there was a controversial election that cuased the 12th Amendment to be created, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. For one, I don't think you change something just because it failed once (and it did not fail...it worked as it should). Also, I think that the newer system is more strongly in favor of political parties (the old system was more of an every man for himself style) and I am not in favor of political parties (as an ideal...I do understand that they are here to stay and do associate myself with those I feel are near my beliefs). As far as the Senator thing goes, I do feel that it is important that the states pick their Senators in the way they see fit. If the Amendment changed it to something allowing the States to decide how Senators are selected (whether by legislative selection, executive selection, or election by the people) I would approve. As it is, it is just one more thing that I feel that has detracted from the purpose of the federal government to govern the states. The House was meant to be the branch that represented the people, while the Senate was meant to represent the states. Finally, as far as the VP selection thing goes, that brings it back to my point about how the president is elected and political parties issue. In the original case, the VP is the runner up, not just someone along for the ride. Eagle, I did not actually call it perfect, I called it "the most perfect document created". This does not mean perfect, just close to perfection. And I meant it as a creation that I do not believe can be topped by man. It is as close to perfection that man can make it. |
