Some election observations (long winded)

wcelliot wrote:

ignorant wrote: posessions give you liberty? Though that seems like a mantra of the modern US, I don't think the founding fathers exactly had that in mind. That just sounds wrong.

The Founding Fathers recognized property rights as an intrinsic (natural) right. Whether they would consider possessions to "give you liberty" is kind of a strange way to look at it, but they felt strongly that the right to possessions was a primary liberty.

The ability to gain property and actually having it are different. You just stated that actually having property gave you liberty.

I wasn't done... Damn job made me quite posting on the internet just 'cause I had work to do.

Think about this - at one time a man could chose to head west, take on the wild and make his own way. Now that's freedom. What if I want to do that? Can't. You have to have money to buy some land. Even if you buy it, you can't buy enough to hunt, trap and grow all your food- and there's not enough stuff to hunt and trap anyhow. Everyone else hunted and trapped it all so they could build sub-divisions. The highway they use to drive to work messed up the migration of the Buffalo and... you see where I'm going even if I'm not technically accurate.

So do we really have any freedom? I drove through Wounded Knee once. Man. Those American Indians are some poor folks. We gave them pretty decent size hunks of land (not going into the whole "we stole it all" thing, though I have some pretty good thoughts about it) and they couldn't survive as their ancestors did. No way I could. Shoot, even if you're a Ted Kaczynski type, you're probably trespassing or guilty of tax evasion or something- I mean, assuming you're not sending letter bombs.

No, freedom is relative. I just think in the world we live in today, an extreme view of "keep government out of my life" is a little outdated. This isn't the same country it was 200 years ago. Hell, it's not the same planet it was 200 years ago. We live with the best interpretation of the idea we can rationalize. And in this interpretation, we need things to make us more free.

The homeless dudes in San Francisco aren't really free in my book. That's no way to live. That's not wrestling a living out of the land. That's just being a bum. But it's as close as we can come to the idea of old. I don't know.

I'll have close to 200 hours in for the last two weeks once I get out of here tomorrow night. That's no way to live either. Not a lot of options. But I guess I sleep a little better knowing that if I just lose it (I'm about to) I might have welfare and Medicare to fall back on for me and my kids. So in the meantime, I'll pay my taxes and be glad I have a job.

I had no say in how the society was put together. So I have no say in how I have to live my life. I'm a long way from homeless. Doing pretty well really. But I've had to play the game and I'm lookin' pretty old for a man of 43. This country has literally, in many ways, sucked the life out of me. Haven't seen my kids awake in a while.

Whew, gettin' a little off the reservation there. Sorry.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I used to live in San Francisco. The place is absolutely littered with homeless guys. Used to have to step over them from time to time when I walked out my (very expensive) front door. I have heard them argue the point- some of them seem to honestly believe they are the only ones who are really free. The rest of us are slaves to our jobs. Walking to work I would somtimes wonder if they had a point.

I can clearly see the point... and can't offer a strong position against it.

In my adult life I've spent time in every income quintile and have at some points had little more than the clothes on my back. Currently I'm doing a bit better than that. ;-)

I have come to realize that the real difference between the "working high income" folks and the "rich" isn't money... it's time. The truly rich have lots of time... and the ability to buy shortcuts (private planes, etc) giving them even more time.

The very poor non-working (assuming they have their basic needs covered) also have an excess of time.

I have less time than either end of the scale (and much less time than I had when I was poorer).

Even the luxury my time here discussing economics and political philosophy is multitasking... I generally have email and/or conference calls going on the other side of my desk. (If I were better at multitasking, I could go do it in the garage and get some of my projects finished).

@ignorant: I pretty much max out my plan... in order to do much better I'd have to take an even more demanding, time consuming higher risk position. I already have a marginally acceptable work-life-income balance and am frankly not interested in working much harder/longer than I do. That's also why I don't own my own business... and have the greatest respect for those who do.

ignorant wrote: The ability to gain property and actually having it are different. You just stated that actually having property gave you liberty.

More specifically I said that having possessions gave me more options and that was more liberty...

The idea of property rights covers both aspects (ability to gain and actual possession), so I wouldn't draw as much of a distinction.

But the pursuit of happiness is a natural right/liberty. And if I consider my possesssions to be part of that, then having them would indeed expand them.

Part of the problem is your use of the term "liberty". Having possessions doesn't give me more rights... it IS a right.

So while having possessions may not "increase liberty", if you deny my ability to gain possessions (or you take my possessions by force), then you are decreasing my liberty.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: No, freedom is relative. I just think in the world we live in today, an extreme view of "keep government out of my life" is a little outdated. This isn't the same country it was 200 years ago. Hell, it's not the same planet it was 200 years ago. We live with the best interpretation of the idea we can rationalize. And in this interpretation, we need things to make us more free.

I absolutely agree with this... but I still want the more intrusive aspects of Government closer and more accountable to me.

There has to be a rule book that establishes some limits and I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty reasonable place to start. Some of the areas that the Government has unconstitutionally expanded into are good ideas which would likely have been supported had they been done properly.

But there are a lot of other areas that the Feds really have little business in... but there was nothing to stop them.

And now that these precidents have been set, there's nothing that the Government can't do.... all it takes is a simple majority vote. And worse, you have to assume that at some point, a political enemy will use that power that you granted a political ally... and use it against you.

If you actually limited the Federal Government to the functions intended, it would really matter little which party were in power...

There are all sorts of government functions that I want and am willing to pay for... just not necessarily at the Federal level where programs are inefficient and take own a life of their own. My distaste for the Dept of Education doesn't mean I'm anti-education (or even anti-public education)...

Toyman01 wrote: He's not trying to, he's trying to explain his thoughts on a subject. How you respond to those thoughts, as in being flippant, is what seems foolish.

Well, as for the first part, he seems capable of explaining his thoughts just fine. Reasonably capable of explaining what he is and isn't trying to do as well. And, anyhow, we've kinda worked that out.

As for my response- I wasn't being flip. I was pointing out that he was being, in my opinion, somewhat condescending. I was using a bit of sarcasm to make my point.

But, truth be told, I don't think I or anyone else made me look like an idiot. And if you think I am an idiot, or even bear a resemblance to an idiot, guess I don't really care. I would say that I don't understand why you felt the need to inject yourself into it at all, but that would be lying.

Maybe it would be worth your while meditate on the answer to that question. See, I can be condescending too. If you would like to post a sarcastic response to that, it's just fine with me. I won't even tell you it makes you look like an idiot.

wcelliot wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: No, freedom is relative. I just think in the world we live in today, an extreme view of "keep government out of my life" is a little outdated. This isn't the same country it was 200 years ago. Hell, it's not the same planet it was 200 years ago. We live with the best interpretation of the idea we can rationalize. And in this interpretation, we need things to make us more free.

I absolutely agree with this... but I still want the more intrusive aspects of Government closer and more accountable to me. There has to be a rule book that establishes some limits and I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty reasonable place to start. Some of the areas that the Government has unconstitutionally expanded into are good ideas which would likely have been supported had they been done properly. But there are a lot of other areas that the Feds really have little business in... but there was nothing to stop them. And now that these precidents have been set, there's nothing that the Government can't do.... all it takes is a simple majority vote. And worse, you have to assume that at some point, a political enemy will use that power that you granted a political ally... and use it against you. If you actually limited the Federal Government to the functions intended, it would really matter little which party were in power... There are all sorts of government functions that I want and am willing to pay for... just not necessarily at the Federal level where programs are inefficient and take own a life of their own. My distaste for the Dept of Education doesn't mean I'm anti-education (or even anti-public education)...

Okay, I'm in a typie mood, so indulge me a bit here.

Here's the thing- I think there would be a considerable overlap in things you and I believe. I think we just draw different conclusions from some of the ideas.

For instance- when you say:

"There has to be a rule book that establishes some limits and I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty reasonable place to start. Some of the areas that the Government has unconstitutionally expanded into are good ideas which would likely have been supported had they been done properly."

Well, I don't want to get too much into your style of argument, but starting with the assertion that you start with the Constitution sure kinda makes it out like some of the rest of us don't. That's okay, but it leads to my point. You then go on to state as a matter of decided fact that the government has unconstitutionally expanded. Well, okay. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. But we do have a system of law that decides these things. I think some of the things that have been decided by this system are wrong. Shoot, I'm sure they are. It's a system of humans and humans make mistakes. Worse yet, it's a system that gives power of appointment to people who have a political agenda. So the people deciding the law of the land are compromised to at least some degree.

So we agree on that point- the legal system isn't perfect and some law has probably been settled in a manner that was influenced by things other than a strict adherence to the Constitution. So far so good. But I would go on to say that since the guidelines that set up the system that led to those conclusions was set up by the Constitution, and no successful effort to overturn those decisions has, at least yet, over turned them, than for now, those decisions are by definition constitutional. The day may come when those decisions are made differently by people who have a different agenda or interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. If and when that happens, those decisions will also be constitutional.

I'm not sure how you're making the leap to "there's nothing the government can't do". I'd like to hear more on that if you're inclined to explore it further. I think there's plenty they can't do and that's demonstrated every day. Lots of folks the police would like to drop in on unannounced and see what kind of illegal stuff they may have lying around. But they can't. Government doesn't have that right. And I also would suggest that you can't do much with a simple majority vote. The Republican minority certainly demonstrated that for the last couple of years.

And how do you limit the Federal Government to the functions it was intended for without interpreting what those functions should be today. An admittedly simplistic example, but the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to raise an Army and Navy. How did we get an Air Force? There's nothing in the Constitution that gives them the right to create one. But we can all agree that it's a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. Hang on, as I said, I know that's an overly simplistic example, but you do have to apply a filter to get to the Air Force. Once you agree that a filter has to be applied, then you can't argue that it can only be applied to some things. Once we get into the world of interpreting intent, anyone can have an opinion. And opinion is all it is at that point. So things get muddy. No longer black and white.

Ug, I actually have more... can't keep at this right this second.

It's a lot worse than the way you describe it.

The intended method for Constitutional law to work was that the powers of the Federal Government were enumerated... and all other powers reserved for the states. Unless the Constitution gave the Government the authority to do something, it couldn't be done, even if the public supported it. (And if they really supported it, there was the Amendment process).

With the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause (and to a lessor extent the General Welfare Clause), the entire idea of Constitutional law has now been reversed. For the most part, that means unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the Government from doing something, it can now do it.

As an example, based on current precedent, there is little chance that completely socialized single payer healthcare would found be found unconstitutional.... even though the Constition clearly doesn't grant that sort of power. So through nothing greater than a simple majority vote, the federal Government could suddenly nationalize a huge chunk of the GDP.

Now you may think that's a good idea, but if a dramatic increase in federal Government power like that is possible with a simple majority vote, what else could they do that you might not like... but would no longer have the Constitution to protect you. So except in extreme cases, the "legal system" is pretty much out of the loop here.

From Justice Kagen's confirmation hearings on the Commerce Clause:

Sen. Coburn: "If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, ‘Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day,' and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, gotta do it.... Does that violate the law?"

Kagan: "Sounds like a dumb law."

Sen. Coburn: "Yeah, I got one that's real similar that I think is equally dumb." (ObamaCare)

Kagan: (Pause) "But I think the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from the question of whether it's Constitutional. And I would think courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless."

She was unwilling to say that the Commerce Clause could not be used in this manner.... how much more extreme of an example could you ask for? If the commerce clause could be used like this, then what couldn't it be used for? ( And to my horror, her position on this is actually in the current legal mainstream.)

We are to the point now of almost being a direct democracy... with the power of Government limited only by what politicians can get 50.1% of the public to support. And history shows how that usually works out.

I don't disagree with anything in your last post. But, did you follow my logic on how we got here? You must interpret the Constitution otherwise it can't possibly be used to guide our law for reasons I outlined above. And if you make the leap to interpretation of intent, it becomes difficult to suppress. Yes, "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" are among the most often cited clauses used to justify various laws. And that's unfortunate. But it's an unfortunate reality and one I see no simple redress for.

Hey Toyman- I still look like an idiot?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Hey Toyman- I still look like an idiot?

Nope, quite reasonable. It's much easier to understand where a person is coming from without the extra remarks. Thanks. It's amazing what a change in tone can do to change an argument into a discussion. With a discussion we all can learn. With an argument none of us do.

wcelliot wrote: We are to the point now of almost being a direct democracy... with the power of Government limited only by what politicians can get 50.1% of the public to support. And history shows how that usually works out.

I believe we are protected from this. 50.1% would likely get us a fair bit of wacky stuff that we haven't seen. I can't find concrete info on a whim like this, but lookie here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

Wow, that surprised me a bit. But we still, for the most part, teach science in the science classes. The minority is able to hold the line well enough to keep things headed forward. (oh the hell I'm going to get for picking that as an example. Only one I could come up with off the top of my head)

At the end of the day, checks and balances do protect us from the more hair brained things one could convince a simple majority to vote for. It takes a reasonably small minority in the Senate, for instance, to kill a bill. It takes a minority of one if that one happens to be the President. Then a minority of 5 (which is, in context a majority, but still five people) if the question then comes to the Supreme Court.

Toyman01 wrote: It's amazing what a change in tone can do to change an argument into a discussion.

Don't believe I changed my tone, but thanks all the same.

Oh thank God. I think my work here is done.

No, I mean here at work. I'm going home. You'll have to carry on without me as I'm pretty sure a glass of wine and a few minutes with my Sweetie are in order before a night of hard core sleep. Back at it early in the AM. Hope I'm not in a state of mind to talk about this any more, but we'll see. I might be back.

wcelliot, you're a smart dude. Keep up the good fight. We're on the same team for the most part. We both love America and we're both trying to push her in the right direction.

I'm a marketing guy by trade, so I'll offer this up- like all advice, worth every penny you paid for it. You make a lot of good points, but you often come off as being more concerned with being "right" than convincing anyone of anything. You wouldn't be good at making political ads. Try to pull your ego out of our arguments and let them stand on their own merits. They're substantial and will serve you well. You don't have to point out a everyone's lack of understanding to demonstrate your expertize. All depends on what you want to do, of course. If you want to be a blow hard, know it all, then don't worry about it. I have a feeling you want something bigger than that.

Bet we get to like each other after a little while longer hashing things out.

Take care,

Ed

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: It's amazing what a change in tone can do to change an argument into a discussion.

Don't believe *I* changed my tone, but thanks all the same.

My first observation wasn't directed at you specifically. There were a few others that were derailing the discussion and trying to send it down the usual political path. I appreciate your opinions on this subject as much as I appreciate wcelliot's. I tend to agree with him more, but that doesn't mean I don't value what you have to say. It is easier to reach a compromise when everyone understands everyone's point of view. If we could just get our elected officials to have a similar discussion Congress might be able to actually accomplish something worthwhile.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You make a lot of good points, but you often come off as being more concerned with being "right" than convincing anyone of anything.

Ed, I'd just like to point out one or two things.

1) You say you are a marketing type. I find these people usually take the long way of getting to/explaining things. Elliot here, is not a marketing type. He is blunt and quite effective in his explanation (which is funny, as it is long, but there is no "fluff" anywhere). He is not trying to convince you of anything (well, maybe he is) but is simply explaining the facts as he sees it (which some may say are open for debate, but NONETHELESS).

You are misinterpreting his bluntness for rudeness. I for one see no action on his part to discredit you.

2) It is extremely interesting to see the differing viewpoints on this subject. The way you (Ed) vs Elliot think is amazing. I've met people in life before that I've had extremely different viewpoints with like this, and can not fathom the way they think. The thing is, it is really interesting to analyze the differences in values/beliefs you two have through written word and your understanding of the world. As I mentioned to my roomate tonight, "perception is reality". This debate proves that

Wine- check

Wife- check

Crappy, brainless TV- check (mid-west megga quake is coming!)

Wife went to bed. My brain is still too "on" (plus, still trading email with work) to go to bed just yet. Nothing to ad, but thanks for the last two posts.

HiTemp, just my opinion, but I think Elliot wants a lot more than to just vent his spleen. No point in investing the time he's clearly invested in this stuff if you don't want to change something. Gotta convince other folks to do that. That's something I know a thing or two about.

Take care,

Ed

Actually I tend to look at it more as trying to educate others... this sort of stuff based on the philosophy of individual liberty or traditional Constitutional law isn't commonly taught any longer (along with critical thinking) while economics and political science classes tend to be taught from the aspect of collective rights... so that tends to be the lens through which these subjects are viewed.

As far as changing anyone, I really only care that folks are exposed to these concepts in order to come to an informed opinion on their own. Reasonable people can take the same set of facts and come up with different conclusions... but if only exposed to partial facts, the resulting opinion is not very sound.

Toyman01 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Hey Toyman- I still look like an idiot?

Nope, quite reasonable. It's much easier to understand where a person is coming from without the extra remarks. Thanks. It's amazing what a change in tone can do to change an argument into a discussion. With a discussion we all can learn. With an argument none of us do.

I always watch these threads with keen interest -- especially when presented in a rationale and thoughtful manner. I've always maintained as a Canadian that I am different than an American -- even if most of the world doesn't see it. Threads like this really illustrate the differences in thinking, and like Toyman writes, we all learn to think a bit more critically about our own views. Just another reason to love the GRM forum.

If I were to have a GRM dinner party I know which members I'd be inviting :)

Rob

(who, despite being a liberal, is far from a communist, and certainly enjoys his rights and freedoms, too, in another country with a "flawed but the best we've got democracy")

Good 'ol wcelliot, bringin' the tech.

A page back, someone was debating the 'freedom' of the homeless person. I instantly thought of the great philosophers, Jules and Vincent:

Jules: I'll just walk the earth. Vincent: What'cha mean walk the earth? Jules: You know, walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from Kung Fu. Vincent: You know what they call a person with no job and no address? A bum.

On the other hand, I'd argue that people who are working 10 hrs a day or more (or, arguably, less) choose to make that decision. I don't think it's a question of liberty. It's a choice we all make to acquire the stuff we need or want. It is quite possible to own almost nothing, travel from place to place and live the life of Caine from Kung Fu. Few people choose that path, because it is generally a life of many discomforts. Liberty gives you the choice of selecting the style of life you wish to lead. More stuff = a more difficult or demanding work life. Less stuff = a more difficult/uncomfortable life. Each of us makes the decision independently how much the 'stuff' matters to us, and we work harder or less hard to achieve the goals of stuff.

Now, personal satisfaction in doing jobs or living a certain way is not necessarily tied to stuff. For too many people, though, it is.

Sorry, got off on a random thought trail there. Debate or ignore at your whim.

wcelliot wrote: . For the most part, that means unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the Government from doing something, it can now do it.

Isn't that how most laws work....

I got it.. This is where you and I disagree. It's all a matter of interpretation. Originalism vs pragmatism. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html <-- not a great page but a good overview.

You believe one, I believe another. It can be argued that the orginal framers wanted the constitution open for interpretation. It can be argued that it should not be interpreted or changed.

The big problem I have with Originalism is that even if it is a "strict" interpretation of the consitution. It is still an interpretation.

So wcelliot is presenting his interpretation. Some take it to be fact, but I'd say that it is more an opinion that others will prescribe to. Thats it.. As sad as it may be it's all down to a choice akin to "what brand of christianity do you choose"...

ddavidv wrote: Good 'ol wcelliot, bringin' the tech.

What tech? I don't see any facts in his wiritings backed up with actual citiations. All I see is one old guy spouting off about how he wants to be left alone and a bunch of other old guys agreeing.

Edited, because trying to reason with wcelliot is like trying to pee into a tornado.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: No, freedom is relative. I just think in the world we live in today, an extreme view of "keep government out of my life" is a little outdated. This isn't the same country it was 200 years ago. Hell, it's not the same planet it was 200 years ago. We live with the best interpretation of the idea we can rationalize. And in this interpretation, we need things to make us more free.

I absolutely agree with this... but I still want the more intrusive aspects of Government closer and more accountable to me. There has to be a rule book that establishes some limits and I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty reasonable place to start. Some of the areas that the Government has unconstitutionally expanded into are good ideas which would likely have been supported had they been done properly. But there are a lot of other areas that the Feds really have little business in... but there was nothing to stop them. And now that these precidents have been set, there's nothing that the Government can't do.... all it takes is a simple majority vote. And worse, you have to assume that at some point, a political enemy will use that power that you granted a political ally... and use it against you. If you actually limited the Federal Government to the functions intended, it would really matter little which party were in power... There are all sorts of government functions that I want and am willing to pay for... just not necessarily at the Federal level where programs are inefficient and take own a life of their own. My distaste for the Dept of Education doesn't mean I'm anti-education (or even anti-public education)...

Okay, I'm in a typie mood, so indulge me a bit here. Here's the thing- I think there would be a considerable overlap in things you and I believe. I think we just draw different conclusions from some of the ideas. For instance- when you say: "There has to be a rule book that establishes some limits and I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty reasonable place to start. Some of the areas that the Government has unconstitutionally expanded into are good ideas which would likely have been supported had they been done properly." Well, I don't want to get too much into your style of argument, but starting with the assertion that *you* start with the Constitution sure kinda makes it out like some of the rest of us *don't*. That's okay, but it leads to my point. You then go on to state as a matter of decided fact that the government has unconstitutionally expanded. Well, okay. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. But we do have a system of law that decides these things. I think some of the things that have been decided by this system are wrong. Shoot, I'm sure they are. It's a system of humans and humans make mistakes. Worse yet, it's a system that gives power of appointment to people who have a political agenda. So the people deciding the law of the land are compromised to at least some degree. So we agree on that point- the legal system isn't perfect and some law has probably been settled in a manner that was influenced by things other than a strict adherence to the Constitution. So far so good. But I would go on to say that since the guidelines that set up the system that led to those conclusions was set up *by* the Constitution, and no successful effort to overturn those decisions has, at least yet, over turned them, than for now, those decisions are by definition constitutional. The day may come when those decisions are made differently by people who have a different agenda or interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. If and when that happens, those decisions will also be constitutional. I'm not sure how you're making the leap to "there's nothing the government can't do". I'd like to hear more on that if you're inclined to explore it further. I think there's plenty they can't do and that's demonstrated every day. Lots of folks the police would like to drop in on unannounced and see what kind of illegal stuff they may have lying around. But they can't. Government doesn't have that right. And I also would suggest that you can't do much with a simple majority vote. The Republican minority certainly demonstrated that for the last couple of years. And how do you limit the Federal Government to the functions it was intended for without interpreting what those functions should be today. An admittedly simplistic example, but the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to raise an Army and Navy. How did we get an Air Force? There's nothing in the Constitution that gives them the right to create one. But we can all agree that it's a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. Hang on, as I said, I know that's an overly simplistic example, but you *do* have to apply a filter to get to the Air Force. Once you agree that a filter has to be applied, then you can't argue that it can only be applied to some things. Once we get into the world of interpreting intent, anyone can have an opinion. And opinion is all it is at that point. So things get muddy. No longer black and white. Ug, I actually have more... can't keep at this right this second.

Good post.

wcelliot wrote: As an example, based on current precedent, there is little chance that completely socialized single payer healthcare would found be found unconstitutional.... even though the Constition clearly doesn't grant that sort of power. So through nothing greater than a simple majority vote, the federal Government could suddenly nationalize a huge chunk of the GDP.

but it does not expressly forbid such, as long as it adheres to other laws currently enacted.

How are we to evolve as a people if we are to not be allowed to change our own government or the government documents of such?

For example, the constitution does not allow for the banning of 10 year olds to work. but we did it..

CFR 29 volume 3 section 570.2 said: § 570.2 Minimum age standards. (1) The Act, in section 3(1), sets a general 16-year minimum age which applies to all employment subject to its child labor provisions in any occu- pation other than in agriculture, with the following exceptions:

ignorant wrote: You believe one, I believe another. It can be argued that the orginal framers wanted the constitution open for interpretation. It can be argued that it should not be interpreted or changed.

Ever read the Federalist Papers?

There is little doubt what the intent was or the philosophy on which the document was written.

And there is little doubt that the interpretation that you support is completely opposite, both in law and philosophy.

That's not necessarily saying that my position (and that of the orginal Founders) is superior to your position (and that of other leftists)... though of course that is my opinion... but it's not intellectually honest to claim that the Founders wanted the Commerce Clause to allow the Government to do anything it wished.... as is now the case.

There is an interesting Jefferson paper which acknowledges the potential validity (and in fact the philosophical strength) of such a "living" interpretation, but he clearly categorized that interpretation as different from (and competing with) what the Founders intended.

Now the article you posted is very good... it explains the rationale of why courts have acted as they have in many cases. However, once "reinterpretation" reaches the point that the entire philosophy of the document is reversed and the strict limitations that it originally placed on Government have now been invalidated... little of the original document or philosophy remains.

You apparently see that as a good thing; I don't.

We have essentially become the type of Government that we revolted against 200 years ago... and so the great experiment in capitalism and individual liberties has come to an end.