Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Point is, other than the Bill of Rights, which only exists because the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it, there are no amendments which restrict Federal Power.
|
Because none were needed.
The fundamental principle behind the Constitution, was that it created the Federal government,
and gave it its powers. The Fed govt had NO powers at all, until the Constitution assigned them to it.
Meaning, the Fed govt still had NO powers except for those explicitly named to it in the Constitution.
Some of the Framers were nervous about that. They knew that big-govt advocates would bend over backward, moving Heaven and Earth to get more powers for the Fed Govt, and so they insisted that some prohibitions be included to make sure the Fed didn't try to usurp "the most important powers". Hence the Bill of Rights, as you said. Turns out that those Framers called it correctly - big govt advocates have been trying ever since, to illegally invent new powers for the Fed that do not appear in the Constitution.
And the last two amendments in the BOR stated explicitly that if a power was not named in the Const (including the BOR), the Fed govt could not have that power (10th amendment). And if a right of the people was not named, the people still COULD have that right unless the Const specifically forbade it (slavery etc.) or reserved it to the Fed (coining money, weights and measures, foreign relations, etc.) -9th amendment.
Quote:
|
The only possible benefit of a Constitutional Convention, is that it would raise expectations among the radicals, causing them to become even more radical.
|
Absolutely correct.
Why light the fuse on a bomb when no bomb is needed?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
