Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Domestic Affairs
Many people wonder what they are doing -- and what they are saying. In fact, what
they are is so wrapped up in the law as it conforms to the constitution at the same
time it conforms to societal norms that it is impossible for them to ever come to a
conclusion that anyone can understand.
However, the basic thrust of the court is to keep the government in line and they
have done an admirable job of it since the beginning. No one was quite sure how it
would work back in the late 1700's, but John Marshal pretty much said "our power is in
our declarations that a certain piece of legislation or presidential action is within
constitutional grounds."
Because the modern world greatly surpassed the reality of the constitution there
is always the theory that we should be "strict" constructionists -- that is, if the
constitution doesn't mention the subject the Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling on it --
and that is denying the fact that the world has moved on in ways that the framers
never imagined.
The trend has always been towards expanding rights -- and this is at it should be
-- because expanding rights is a new theory in the world, barely 240 years old. The
Constitution is flexible enough to allow these modern interpretations.
However, the court is not beyond the reality of the socialist paradigm so some
times they make rulings that support the state, but in general, they have been
antigovernment since the beginning.
they are is so wrapped up in the law as it conforms to the constitution at the same
time it conforms to societal norms that it is impossible for them to ever come to a
conclusion that anyone can understand.
However, the basic thrust of the court is to keep the government in line and they
have done an admirable job of it since the beginning. No one was quite sure how it
would work back in the late 1700's, but John Marshal pretty much said "our power is in
our declarations that a certain piece of legislation or presidential action is within
constitutional grounds."
Because the modern world greatly surpassed the reality of the constitution there
is always the theory that we should be "strict" constructionists -- that is, if the
constitution doesn't mention the subject the Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling on it --
and that is denying the fact that the world has moved on in ways that the framers
never imagined.
The trend has always been towards expanding rights -- and this is at it should be
-- because expanding rights is a new theory in the world, barely 240 years old. The
Constitution is flexible enough to allow these modern interpretations.
However, the court is not beyond the reality of the socialist paradigm so some
times they make rulings that support the state, but in general, they have been
antigovernment since the beginning.
| Domestic Affairs |