quote:Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:quote:Originally posted by Renegade Nation:quote:Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Ren,
I sort of agree with you, the Feds do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Constitution.
However, given the Supremacy Clause, it would take a Constitutional Convention to rectify the issue of states' rights.
I'm all for one, especially if it includes a Balanced Budget clause with penalties for intractable congresspeople.
nsns
Much could be said of the so-called "supremacy clause"...But briefly, no constitutional convention needed. Notice "in pursuance there of"...if federal law is not "in pursuant" of the enumerated powers it is not constitutional...let alone "supreme".
In a historical context, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government...not give them unlimited power.
Ren,
When I was a kid, and we were at Cold War with the Soviet Union, we were taught that our Constitution allowed everything not forbidden, and theirs forbade everything not allowed.
Perhaps we've caught up.
nsns
OK, I guess I'm not sure what you're saying here...Are you agreeing with my above quote or disagreeing?
"we were taught that our Constitution allowed everything not forbidden"
"allowed everything" to the people or the central government?
If you are saying our Constitution has been turned on it's head to give unlimited authority to a central power...Then yes I whole heartedly agree.