Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From:
Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM
"This IS a different world that we live in now from the standpoint of dangers to the population from outside sources." I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Ever since the rude awakening from our rosy dreams on the morning of December 7, 1941, we've lived in a world fraught with dangers from outside sources. The decades-long threat of the Cold War had some extremely close calls, including two B-47s sitting on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the islands of Quemoy and Matsu with engines running and nuclear weapons in their bomb bays, called off within a few minutes of take-off (this didn't make the news—I learned about it from a former crewman on the aircraft carrier), to the Berlin blockade, to the Cuban missile crisis and beyond, for the past sixty-some years we have lived in a world of almost constant threat. The government's abiding by the stipulations of the Constitution has waxed and waned a bit over those decades (internment of Japanese-Americans, the excesses of HUAC, etc.), but until now, the Constitution has never taken as severe a hit as the Patriot Act,. This is less an "amendment" (A reminder: no law passed by Congress can be construed as an "amendment," and it in no way alters what is set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights—it is neither legal nor constitutional unless it meets the requirement set forth in Article V) and more of an attempt to repeal, certainly to repeal crucial portions of the Bill of Rights. I don't like it. And I don't understand how anyone who respects the Constitution can fail to be, at the very least, apprehensive—if not downright furious at the current administration for attempting to do this.
On another matter—Social Security, as far as I can tell, is not explicitly mandated in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to impose taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," and Social Security's constitutionality falls under the umbrella of this clause. This has been a matter of heated debate since 1935. Without getting into my particular preferences for how Social Security should be handled, I believe a healthy Social Security system is a good thing, and I would hate to see anything jeopardize that. Indeed, most modern nations have such systems (some far superior to our own). But it would be hard to argue the actual details of its administration by trying to cite the Constitution. Beyond various interpretations of the "general welfare" clause, whether it is a constitutional issue at all is moot.
Doug, I think we're probably on the same page when it comes to the inadequacies of political terminology. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" each cover a wide spectrum, with a blending in the middle, and there are some positions that don't even fit on that continuum. Trying to cram the broad range of political beliefs into two cramped pigeon-holes can really be misleading. Our terminology is antiquated.
Don Firth
P.S: Dreaded Guest, you have confused communism and fascism. Get a good, general book on political science and read it. I recommend Modern Political Philosophies and What They Mean by Louis Wasserman; Garden City Books; Garden City, New York; 1951. It's old, and it's later chapters listing the political systems of modern countries is outdated, but the main section is basic and still holds good. A library or a used book store may cough up a copy. In any case, get some good basic poly sci text and learn the differences.
|
sj
