Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mauser96 who wrote (2833)	6/21/1999 12:46:00 PM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

lucius: you're right about how lucky we are to have the founders around when we did (that collection of genius within 50 square miles, imo, happened only twice before in history -- 5th/4th century b.c. greece and renaisance florence); about the "subtle protection" in the constitution itself for our "rights;" and about how close the votes were in several states, .e.g., ceasar rodney, dying of throat cancer and riding through the rain to cast the tie-breaking vote (2-1) in rhode island. but i stand with hamilton, who said the bill of rights was a bad idea. hamilton said the founders meant to create a limited government with limited powers. by suggesting a bill of rights, he predicted that the government wd try to take all powers that weren't enumerated in the bill of rights, which is why, as a sop to him (and others), the drafters tacked on the 9th and 10th amendments, reserving rights to the states and the people. but sure enough, the arguments now are about how much we're protected by, say, the first or second amendment, not about whether the government has the power from the constitution itself, as originally drafted. to put it another way, the first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging ...." fine, congress says, but that means we can make "any" law as long as it doesn't abridge the 5 freedoms specified. by shifting the terms of the debate, or, as we lawyers wd say, by changing who has the burden of proof, you can really swing the outcome, or at least put the party with the burden in the position of starting off with at least 1 if not 1-1/2 strikes against him. that has been the loss of most of the rights and freedoms the founders meant us to have. that and losing our sense of public and private virtue. best, red jinn