Does the Constitution allow what it doesn’t prohibit?
Or
Does the Constitution prohibit what it doesn’t allow?
Researching the Lakota has given me a new frame of reference and a new view into history. While I was searching, theabovequestionleapedoutatme.
How that question is answered seems to be the difference between a big government and a small one. Claiming support for “strict Constitutionalism” means nothing if one doesn’t answer the question above. You can “strictly Constitutionally” support almost anything if the Constitution allows what it doesn’t prohibit.
This is what the Supreme Court has been doing for the past century.
They didn’t suddenly forget that they were supposed to be deciding about constitutionality. What they suddenly forgot was the doctrine of enumerated powers.
I thought that anything not specifically allowed the federal government in the constitution fell to states rights. We have a federal government that regularly usurps states rights using the flimsiest of legal assumptions and interpretations.
My interpretation is that the constitution does prohibit the federal government if it is not spelled out as being allowed. The doctrine of enumerated powers spells out what the federal government is allowed and all else falls to the states.
I am a supporter of Duncan Hunter but if he doesn’t get the nod, I could be persuaded to back Ron Paul. I like a lot that he says. I am a supporter of strong borders, US Sovereignty, and of LEGAL immigration.
Report This Comment