So what's your point? You have no specific criticism, just a whine.

I note you write from a country that doesn't even HAVE a written constitution. How's that working out for ya?

Unconstitutionality has pretty much been around as long as the constitution itself (what a surprise!). The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional and was called so by the President who executed it (Jefferson) and even went against his own philosophy (he fought tooth and nail with Hamilton only to execute a huge 'Statist' act himself). But most people felt that the US needed access to New Orleans, and the rest was thrown in as a bonus (of sorts). So the US government has been eclipsing the constitution from the get go. But when it was then , it was for large, basically macro-economic issues. Now the eclipsing is micro-economically based, and massively invasive into personal lives. The most troubling issue is how Jefferson used self serving language to execute what was to him desirable result, the likely transfer of power away from the Northeast. The message to me is, if the power is there, it will be used, and likely for self serving reasons, no matter who is in charge of it.

I note you write from a country that doesn't even HAVE a written constitution. How's that working out for ya?

Very well for the last few centuries. I've discussed the very same in various public houses in recent times many of which, out of interest, are just a bit older than the USA.

I love the USA, honestly I do, but you gotta understand that constitutions in themselves are not necessarily better or worse than case law and precedent and that neither necessarily afford bullet proof protection against the evil that politicians can do.

Very poor comment.

Bye.

Politicians have been pissing away the US Constitution since about the time the ink was dry. This is not surprising, its in their nature.

The founding fathers probably would be inciting violence -- which would, of course, be considered illegal by the government. That doesn't mean that doing so (inciting violence) would be wrong, as no government is going to approve of calls for its own overthrow. Those who know no distinction between what it right and what is legal would not understand this.

For the time being, I know what my constitution says. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand it. I will exercise my rights as I see fit, and if the government has a problem with that, they can go f%$# themselves.

No, the founders would not be inciting violence. They would be agitating very strongly for reform, probably amendment to the Constitution itself. One of the key tenets of the founders was that if you can change things peacefully, you cannot use violence.

TM,

Some of them would be, like Sam Adams and Pat Henry.

dsmith says paul marks does not have a specific criticism... yet what is wrong with pointing out what should be so damn obvious to most people here and yet seems to be almost invisible to so many? if an englishman can point out what so many in the US cannot does not seem a good reason to insult the messanger.

One of the more memorable actions of John Adams, our second president, was to sign into effect the Alien and Sedition Act. This essentially made it illegal to criticize public officials. This doesn't sound very constitutional at all, but the law survived into the Jefferson administration (and a switch of parties, in a manner of speaking).

As clear as our constitution may seem, it leaves a lot of latitude for implementation--especially if you read it as limiting, but not exhausting state authority. (That used to be called Loose Constructionism vs. Strict Constructionism--I'm not sure what it's being called nowadays).

Only just recently, with the Lopez case, has the Supreme Court started to rethink the reach of the federal government. At no point in history has the constitution ever been so clear and precise that there wasn't some on-going debate about some government power or institution not even explicitly mentioned in the document. (Alien and Sedition Act, National Bank, etc.).

--ME

"What's your point ?" Reminds me of Bush wrt to the WMD stockpiles vs. WMD-related research programs : "what's the difference ?".

It's nice that you have an opinion, not that it matters btw, but would it be painful to supply some *examples* of why you have this opinion?

Blogs. The regurgitated vomitorium of unprocessed thought.

sigh.

You've said that the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare, etc are unconstitutional. However, exactly why are they unconstitutional? You don't explain that. Just because they are statist policies does not necessarily make them unconstitutional(just bad). If you are going to make the claim, you are going to have to back it up by stating exactly which articles of the USC or Bill of Rights are being abridged by said program.

Saying "everything the government does is unconstituional" is a barking moonbat type of generalization(and imho, not typical of Samizdata)

Bono:

The argument against much of the federal gov't's current programs is the principle of federalism. Under such a system, the states are semi-autonomous and the central (federal) government acts primarily to mediate between states and other nations (Article 1, section 10).

The powers of congress are well enumerated in Article 1 (particularly, sections 8 and 9), and the oft forgotten 10th ammendment *should* act as a limitation on expanding central powers.
(Kudos to USConstitution.net, see specifically The U.S. Constitution Online)

Accordingly, should the several state's each act to provide health care, et al, it would be statist (by the common definition used at this site), but it would be constitutional.

--unconstitutional programs (the 'no child left behind' thing, the extension of Medicare, and so) in addition to all the existing unconstitutional programmes.--

Well, we're still "discussing" what "provides for the general welfare" means.

All forms of government are flawed. Our Constitution provides a form of government that has been, over the course of its history, the lesser of many evils (see the French, Spanish, Russian, German, all of Latin American, and most other national governments over the same period as example). Also, while it has been a check on extremes of passions from both the left and the right, there have been times when individuals have created havoc both within our nation and abroad with their abuses. We in the United States still have a higher standard of individual freedom than virtually anyone else, anywhere else, both now and at any time in history. That said, I believe that if Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Henry Lee, and Ben Franklin were alive today, they would be melting down computer cores with their rhetoric on the Internet, and making a number of politicians and pundits very uncomfortable with their views on the issues of today.

Well maybe not quite as soon as the ink was dry, but by the time Washington was dead, certainly. That appears to be the point at which 'no' received a grandly Clintoninan redefinition. Dear old George was such an idealistic stickler, he took 'no' seriously about things like 'shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...'

Poor guy must have started spinning shortly after his corpse cooled down.

Why is it that pricipals seem to last not much more than the natural lifetime of a benevolent tyrant, which is what Washington in effect was? Any bets on when we get our next one?

David, I absolutely agree. But to your question about benevolent tyrants and principles, I would observe:

1) Only tyrants can enforce the principles that they believe in, without them being watered down, modified and generally undermined by various legistatures, judges and drafting legal minds, all serving differing agendas and special interests (even their own).

2) This is true whether the tyrant is benevolent or otherwise.

3) Are you really pining for the good old days of King George the First of America? (Which I agree, was what he in effect was, despite all of the consititutional rhetoric...)

;-)

Constitutions are clumsy things, and only effective when they are general guidelines. Otherwise, they get worked-around, or ignored. Or overthrown.

The nub is, how they are modified in the light of changing societies, beliefs and goals. This is true whether they are written or unwritten, and there is no absolute answer as to which is best.

Ed

'Blogs. The regurgitated vomitorium of unprocessed thought.'

And a crapper for the faecal material of most processed thought, too, buddy.

But there is sufficient digestible material for an occasional feast provided you look at the menu and remember what each dish that you sampled tasted like on the last visit!

Food for thought? Vituperation vomit? Or sheer shit? Take your pick.

And if you don't like any of it, open your own little Bistro and try your hand in the kitchen.

Sorry - the above post was mine (Frank P) I forgot to revert to my name after a test this morning when I was having connection problems.

Frank P

'... this morningwhen I was having connection problems.'

Never mind, dear, you succeeded in the end!

but you gotta understand that constitutions in themselves are not necessarily better or worse than case law and precedent and that neither necessarily afford bullet proof protection against the evil that politicians can do.

Well said JohnJo.

I believe that the Soviet Union had a lovely Constitution, fat lot of good it did for the people living there.

A couple of people seem to be bringing up the "General Welfare Power" again (I say "seem to" as only one person has actually used the words "general welfare" - but a few other people seem to be basing their arguments upon the idea).

Well (as is well known to many people who read Samizdata) the idea of a "General Welfare Power" has been torn apart many times (and by a lot better writers than me), but it seems that I can not avoid dealing with this idea again.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States states that the powers granted to Congress are for "the common defence and general welfare of the United States" it then goes on to list the powers. "common defence and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the powers - it is not some sort of catch all power itself.

As a libertarian I do not like some of the powers granted to Congress (for example 7. to "establish post offices and post roads"), but the power is there. There is no power (either in the main text or in the amendments) for the Congress to set up a Medicare scheme, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, N.E.A. (and so on).

Most things that Federal government does are unconstitutional.

Hamilton said he was concerned that some people might use the existance of a Bill of Rights to claim that anything that was not forbidden to the government by such a Bill of Rights was allowed to it - however the Ninth and Tenth Amendments deal with this problem.