This is fascinating stuff. Following footnote #1 to United States v. Sprague, 1931
I’m confused. First of all, Article V describes the process of amendment, which is not what the quote is referencing. Can you explain which article 5 it’s referring to?
Second, it’s one thing to say that the limitations in the 10th amendment were so much a part of the understanding of the time that the amendment wasn’t necessary. It’s quite another to say there are no limitations on federal government actions.
Third, the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was written may not be the same as the understanding of the people in 1931 or today. So, one can make a case that the 10th amendment serves by telling us what the founders intended our rights to be regarding limits on federal powers.
Lib: My opinion is equally as worthless as your own. On the other hand, my legal analysis and the authorities I provide in support of that analysis are quite valuable. Lucky for you and december, I’m doing this one pro bono.
december: The 10th Amendment seems rather a hijack of this thread, don’t you think? So let’s leave it at this: I never said “there are no limitations on federal government actions”; I said the 10th Amendment provides no limitations on federal government actions (quite the opposite of what you had implied above).
John Derbyshire says in this excellent column, http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire080202.asp, that “Practically all of the Socialist Party platform on which Norman Thomas ran in 1928 has been implemented.” His inner link is broke, but I can safely say that the party practically fell apart as the New Deal came into effect.
What’s the matter, Lib? I stated and provided legal authorities for the proposition that, under our system of govenrment, the federal government may both own property and (in most circumstances) regulate the business enterprises of private citizens. I understand that both principles contravene your personal philosophy, and if you have a problem with the state of the law, you’re welcome to argue against it. But that’s no excuse to get snotty with me about being a lawyer and stating what the law is.
I figured you were referring to the Fabian society but I didn't see the relevance.
While I make no great claims for my knowledge of America I feel I must take issue with your point. You appear to be claiming America is undergoing evolution towards socialism.
Perhaps you could give a few examples of what you mean but that’s not a view I have heard expressed often. Or indeed at all.
Any snottiness is entirely your presumption. Recall that you intercepted my post to December.
But while you’re on the topic, I frankly would like to be able to express what I, as an individual, think of the Constitution without someone coming behind me and saying, “Well, the Supreme Court said so-and-so, and the High Holy Arbiter of Law has decreed this-and-that.”
Their opinions have the weight of law, enforced by an army. But they are still just opinions, the same as any of us. Certainly more informed as to the legal history and culture, but certainly no more epistemologically valid.
Fox wrote:
OSHA, DOT, IRS, FAA, FCC, HUD, FDA — those are a couple.
I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s remark about Christianity, which I will mangle in paraphrase: it is not that it was tried and found wanting, it was found difficult and not tried.
I agree with the suggestion that much of what old-time Socialists worked for has come to pass, and I adhere to that political faction that seeks to make more of it come to be. But a lot of what is termed “socialism” is based on outmoded structures. For instance, worker ownership is more prevalent as a direct fact (and an unfortunate one for Enron’s people) and an indirect fact due to stock ownership, etc.
But it is the underlying moral basis of socialism, that of economic justice, that is most crucial. This ethical basis is the most important distinction between socialism and Marxism, its hopelessly deranged cousin, always babbbling on about History as if it were a predictable and inevitable fact.
In places where “socialism” is functional, as in Scandanavia, you will generally find a social ethic that disdains displays of consumption. It isn’t illegal to spend your life in the headlong pursuit of shiny, noisy crap, but its rather damn silly, isn’t it.
A “socialism” based on such ethical concerns does not need to be based on any impelling or compelling legal system, we need not alter the Constitution to make it so. Finally, we don’t need better laws, but better people.
**litost[b/], That’s probably why the thirties were the last chance for socialism in America. After World war 2, your straight into the cold war. I don’t think there was a whole lot of difference between Socialism and Communism in the eyes of the more Right wing Americans and this filtered through to the public. That’s where I think the idea of Socialism and Americanism being incompatible, really took off.
** elucidator **, As I recall America has one of the widest discrepancies between rich and poor of anywhere in the world. Surely that’s one of the main things your old time socialists were against?
Ack, It was all going so well, then I put one little “/” in the wrong place, I’ve bolded half the page and I look like an idiot.
That’ll teach me not to bother previewing my posts.
While I’m in sighing mood.
Libertarian, If your going to foist your political philosophy into the discussion could you at least back it up with something stronger than a string of initials.
Those who actually lived under Communism would say that it wasn’t demonized during the Cold War; it was white washed before the Cold War. However, I agree that anti-Communism does go along with anti-socialism.
However, America’s anti-socialism feelings go back to the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s – before the Cold War started.
ISTM that the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority might be instructive. There was a huge political battle over this federally-owned power company. My vague memory is that this battle discouraged the feds from moving to own more of the means of production.
I don’t think that this is pertinent to the point of the question of the OP.
Communism was demonised in the US during the Cold War as well you know. Socialism was tarred with the same brush and the mud has still stuck to this day.
